Social Justice Mathematics and Public Health Equity: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Literacy in Health Decision-Making
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35898/ghmj-931337Keywords:
Quantative literacy, Health numeracy, Public health equity, Social justice mathematics, Health decision-makingAbstract
Background: Public health decision-making increasingly requires individuals to interpret numerical information such as risks, probabilities, treatment benefits, and epidemiological trends. However, disparities in quantitative literacy may contribute to inequitable health outcomes and reduced participation in informed decision-making. Despite growing interest in health literacy and equity, systematic reviews have examined health numeracy, risk communication, and health literacy; however, limited research has specifically examined the role of social justice mathematics in strengthening equitable health decision-making.
Aim: This systematic review examined how quantitative literacy and health numeracy influence health decision-making, explored how numeracy disparities contribute to public health inequities, and assessed how social justice mathematics may support equitable engagement with health information.
Methods: Guided by PRISMA 2020, a systematic search of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ERIC was conducted for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 50 studies were included in the final synthesis. Two independent reviewers conducted article screening and quality appraisal, with disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted due to methodological heterogeneity across studies.
Findings: The review found that limited numeracy contributed to misinterpretation of health risks, reduced screening participation, difficulties in treatment decision-making, and lower engagement in preventive healthcare, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. The findings further showed that social justice mathematics may strengthen critical interpretation of health data, improve engagement with public health issues, and support awareness of structural inequities. However, empirical evidence directly linking social justice mathematics interventions to measurable health outcomes remains limited.
Conclusion: Quantitative literacy is a critical determinant of equitable health decision-making. Public health systems should adopt numeracy-sensitive communication strategies, while education systems should integrate socially responsive quantitative literacy and authentic health data into mathematics curricula to strengthen informed participation and reduce health inequities.
Downloads
References
Age, T. J., Machaba, M.F. & Chaver, J. (2025). Effect of Social Justice Mathematics on Senior Secondary School Students’ Performance in Algebraic Expressions. Mathematics Education Journal 9(1) 1-13. https://doi.org/10.22219/mej.v9i1.37244
Age, T. J. (2026). The Place of Ethnomathematics in an Ubuntulized Trigonometry Classroom. In M. Machaba & P. Motseki (Eds.), Global Perspectives on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Mathematics Classrooms (pp. 127-152). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-2888-1.ch006
Ancker, J. S., Benda, N. C., Sharma, M. M., Johnson, S. B., Demetres, M., Delgado, D., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2025). Scope, methods, and overview findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful evidence review of communicating probabilities in health: a systematic review. MDM Policy & Practice, 10(1), 23814683241255334. https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241255334
Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011). Low health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
Bonner, C., Trevena, L. J., Gaissmaier, W., Han, P. K. J., Okan, Y., Ozanne, E., Peters, E., Timmermans, D., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2021). Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: Fundamental principles. Medical Decision Making, 41(7), 821–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X21996328
Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Ryan, R., Shepperd, S., Thomas, J., Welch, V., & Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ, 368, l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: From innumeracy to insight. BMJ, 327(7417), 741–744. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(2), 53–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x
Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034699
Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203112946
Muscat, D. M., Shepherd, H. L., Nutbeam, D., Trevena, L., & McCaffery, K. J. (2021). Health literacy and shared decision-making: Exploring the relationship to enable meaningful patient engagement in healthcare. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36, 521–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05912-0
Nutbeam, D., & Lloyd, J. E. (2021). Understanding and responding to health literacy as a social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102529
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., & Dieckmann, N. (2007). Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs, 26(3), 741–748. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.741
Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K. J., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327
Schillinger, D. (2021). Social determinants, health literacy, and disparities: Intersections and controversies. Health Literacy Research and Practice, 5(3), e234–e243. https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20210712-01
Stormacq, C., Van den Broucke, S., & Wosinski, J. (2019). Does health literacy mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and health disparities? Integrative review. Health Promotion International, 34(5), e1–e17. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day062
Svendsen, M. T., Bak, C. K., Sørensen, K., Pelikan, J., Riddersholm, S. J., Skals, R. K., Mortensen, R. N., Maindal, H. T., Bøggild, H., Nielsen, G., & Torp-Pedersen, C. (2020). Associations of health literacy with socioeconomic position, health risk behavior, and health status: A large national population-based survey among Danish adults. BMC Public Health, 20, 565. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08498-8
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Terungwa James Age, M.Ed., Ph.D.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
GHMJ (Global Health Management Journal) conforms fully to The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) and DOAJ Open Access Definition. Authors, readers, and reviewers are free to Share ” copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and Adapt ” remix, transform, and build upon the material. Author(s) retain unrestricted copyrights and publishing rights of their work. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Learn the details at the License policy.
How to Cite
