Development and evaluation of CAHPS survey items assessing how well healthcare providers address health literacy.
ABSTRACT The complexity of health information often exceeds patients' skills to understand and use it.
To develop survey items assessing how well healthcare providers communicate health information.
Domains and items for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Item Set for Addressing Health Literacy were identified through an environmental scan and input from stakeholders. The draft item set was translated into Spanish and pretested in both English and Spanish. The revised item set was field tested with a randomly selected sample of adult patients from 2 sites using mail and telephonic data collection. Item-scale correlations, confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency reliability estimates were estimated to assess how well the survey items performed and identify composite measures. Finally, we regressed the CAHPS global rating of the provider item on the CAHPS core communication composite and the new health literacy composites.
A total of 601 completed surveys were obtained (52% response rate). Two composite measures were identified: (1) Communication to Improve Health Literacy (16 items); and (2) How Well Providers Communicate About Medicines (6 items). These 2 composites were significantly uniquely associated with the global rating of the provider (communication to improve health literacy: P<0.001, b=0.28; and communication about medicines composite: P=0.02, b=0.04). The 2 composites and the CAHPS core communication composite accounted for 51% of the variance in the global rating of the provider. A 5-item subset of the Communication to Improve Health Literacy composite accounted for 90% of the variance of the original 16-item composite.
This study provides support for reliability and validity of the CAHPS Item Set for Addressing Health Literacy. These items can serve to assess whether healthcare providers have communicated effectively with their patients and as a tool for quality improvement.
- SourceAvailable from: Ignacio Ricci-Cabello[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: With the increasing recognition of health literacy as a worldwide research priority, the development and refinement of indices to measure the construct is an important area of inquiry. Furthermore, the proliferation of online resources and research means that there is a growing need for self-administered instruments. We undertook a systematic overview to identify all published self-administered health literacy assessment indices to report their content and considerations associated with their administration. A primary aim of this study was to assist those seeking to employ a self-reported health literacy index to select one that has been developed and validated for an appropriate context, as well as with desired administration characteristics. Systematic searches were carried out in four electronic databases, and studies were included if they reported the development and/or validation of a novel health literacy assessment measure. Data were systematically extracted on key characteristics of the instruments: breadth of construct ("generic" vs. "content- or context- specific" health literacy), whether it was an original instrument or a derivative, country of origin, administration characteristics, age of target population (adult vs. pediatric), and evidence for validity. 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. There were 27 original instruments (27/35; 77.1%) and 8 derivative instruments (8/35; 22.9%). 22 indices measured "general" health literacy (22/35; 62.9%) while the remainder measured condition- or context- specific health literacy (13/35; 37.1%). Most health literacy measures were developed in the United States (22/35; 62.9%), and about half had adequate face, content, and construct validity (16/35; 45.7%). Given the number of measures available for many specific conditions and contexts, and that several have acceptable validity, our findings suggest that the research agenda should shift towards the investigation and elaboration of health literacy as a construct itself, in order for research in health literacy measurement to progress.PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(12):e109110. · 3.53 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Disclaimer: The authors are responsible for the content of this article, which does not necessarily represent the views of the Institute of Medicine. Disclosures: The authors report no significant conflicts or financial disclosures related to this work.07/2014;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The complexity of health information frequently exceeds patients' skills to understand and use it. Improvement in hospital communication has the potential to improve the quality of care. To develop a set of items to supplement the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospital Survey (HCAHPS) to assess how well hospitals communicate health information to inpatients. We conducted an environmental scan and obtained input from stakeholders to identify domains and survey items, and cognitively tested the item set in English and Spanish. We administered the items to a random sample of adult hospital patients using mail and telephone data collection. We estimate item-scale correlations for hypothesized multi-item composites, internal consistency reliability for composites, correlations among composites, and regressed global rating of the hospital and a would you recommend the hospital items on HCAHPS existing core and the new composites to evaluate the unique contribution of each to these "bottom-line" measures. A total of 1013 surveys were obtained (55% response rate). With some exceptions, correlations between items and scales were consistent with the hypothesized item clusters. Three composites were identified: (1) communication about tests; (2) communication about how to care for self and medicines; and (3) communication about forms. This study provides support for the measurement properties of the HCAHPS Item Set for Addressing Health Literacy. It can serve as both a measure of whether healthcare providers in a hospital setting have communicated effectively with their patients and as a tool for quality improvement.Medical care 09/2012; 50(9 Suppl 2):S12-21. · 2.94 Impact Factor