Statistics are a helpful tool that can demonstrate the distribution and effects of certain phenomena. However, they should be used cautiously when presenting sensitive information, as misinterpretation and a lack of understanding can lead to false conclusions (Streck & LoBiondo-Wood, 2022). The example provided by Gould illustrates how easily a number can elicit an adverse reaction. The author found sources stating that the median mortality for people with peritoneal mesothelioma was eight months (Gould, 2004). This brief statement can cause concern among many people, regardless of their treatment outcomes and individual characteristics.
The most recent information published on publicly available websites is similarly short. It is stated that “median survival for patients diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma is about 2.5 years” (Moncivais & Stevenson, 2023, para. 5). Later, the article expands on this statistic, providing a range from several months to more than six years (Moncivais & Stevenson, 2023). Still, the first line can create a false perception in the public’s mind. Healthcare professionals should understand that they cannot use statistics without considering their impact on people’s thinking.
This idea is fundamental when clinicians deal with life-changing conditions like cancer. A significant source of concern for people is their survival rate after the diagnosis. While mortality statistics may be helpful for scholars, they can be potentially misleading to the public, as they are often perceived as the sole expected outcome (Paladino et al., 2019).
Gould (2004) notes that his experience as a scientist has prevented him from despairing about what he read, but not all people possess the same abilities. Thus, publishing such numbers for people without healthcare education can create an incorrect view of how illnesses progress in different situations. A question that arises from reading these materials is how researchers can present data to empower patients. Furthermore, one may ask which number is more indicative of danger – the mean or the median – when discussing survival rates and prognoses.
References
Gould, S.J. (2004). The median isn’t the message. The Ceylon Medical Journal, 49(4), 139-140.
Moncivais, K., & Stevenson, J. (2023). Peritoneal mesothelioma. Mesothelioma.
Paladino, J., Lakin, J. R., & Sanders, J. J. (2019). Communication strategies for sharing prognostic information with patients: Beyond survival statistics. JAMA, 322(14), 1345-1346.
Streck, B.P., & LoBiondo-Wood, G. (2022). Chapter 17: Understanding research findings. In G. LoBiondo-Wood & J. Haber (Eds.), Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (pp. 316-327). Elsevier.