Article

Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Family medicine (Impact Factor: 0.85). 10/2004; 36(8):588-94.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy.
Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA.
Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy.
Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.

4 Followers
 · 
207 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The number of patients requiring dialysis continues to increase worldwide imposing a substantial social and economic burden on patients, their families and healthcare systems. Compared with facility-based dialysis, dialysis performed by the patient at home is associated with higher quality of life, freedom, survival and reduced healthcare costs. International guidelines recommend suitable patients are offered a choice of dialysis modality, including home-based dialysis. Predialysis education and offering patients choice increase home dialysis uptake, yet the factors that patients and families are willing to trade off in making decisions about dialysis location are not well understood. The Home First study will explore patients' and caregivers' beliefs, attitudes and preferences regarding dialysis education and decision-making with regards to dialysis options; to identify key attributes which influence their decision-making, and to quantify the relative value of these attributes. This study will use a mixed-methods approach to describe patient and caregiver preferences and views about the factors that influence their choice of home or facility-based dialysis. Face-to-face, semistructured interviews will be conducted with 30-40 patients and 10-15 caregivers. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts will be conducted. Additional to providing information on the perspectives and experiences of patients and caregivers, these analyses will also inform the design of discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We will undertake DCEs with approximately 150 patients and 150 caregivers to quantify preferences for home and facility dialysis. The Hawke's Bay, Counties Manukau, and Capital Coast District Health Board Research Ethics Committees approved the study. Findings will be presented in national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination to patients will take the form of presentations, newsletters and reports to support and community groups. Reports will be disseminated to funders and participating renal units and to the New Zealand Ministry of Health. ACTRN12615000314527. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 04/2015; 5(4):e007405. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007405 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Antiretroviral (ARV) medication diversion to the illicit market has been documented in South Florida, and linked to sub-optimal adherence in people living with HIV. ARV diversion reflects an unmet need for care in vulnerable populations that have difficulty engaging in consistent HIV care due to competing needs and co-morbidities. This study applies the Gelberg-Andersen behavioral model of health care utilization for vulnerable populations to understand how social vulnerability is linked to ARV diversion and adherence. Cross-sectional data were collected from a targeted sample of vulnerable people living with HIV in South Florida between 2010 and 2012 (n = 503). Structured interviews collected quantitative data on ARV diversion, access and utilization of care, and ARV adherence. Logistic regression was used to estimate the goodness-of-fit of additive models that test domain fit. Linear regression was used to estimate the effects of social vulnerability and ARV diversion on ARV adherence. The best fitting model to predict ARV diversion identifies having a low monthly income and unstable HIV care as salient enabling factors that promote ARV diversion. Importantly, health care need factors did not protect against ARV diversion, evidence that immediate competing needs are prioritized even in the face of poor health for this sample. We also find that ARV diversion provides a link between social vulnerability and sub-optimal ARV adherence, with ARV diversion and domains from the Behavioral Model explaining 25 % of the variation in ARV adherence. Our analyses reveal great need to improve engagement in HIV care for vulnerable populations by strengthening enabling factors (e.g. patient-provider relationship) to improve retention in HIV care and ARV adherence for vulnerable populations.
    AIDS and Behavior 04/2015; 19(5). DOI:10.1007/s10461-014-0969-7 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the use of individual care plans (ICPs) within primary chronic illness care in the Netherlands, and to explore the relationships between ICP use, patient characteristics, and patient-perceived quality of care. Cross-sectional study using survey data from a panel of chronically ill patients and medical registration data provided by their general practices. A sample of 1377 patients with somatic chronic disease(s) randomly selected in general practices throughout the Netherlands, supplemented with a sample of 225 COPD patients, also recruited from general practices. (i) Percentage of ICP use based on self-report by chronically ill patients, and (ii) patient-perceived quality of care as assessed using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). ICP use among the total generic sample was low (9%), but slightly higher (13%) among patients diagnosed with diabetes or COPD, diseases for which disease management programmes have been set up in the Netherlands. Patients with a low educational level and patients with poor(er) self-rated health were more likely to have an ICP. Compared with patients without an ICP, patients with an ICP more often reported that the care they received was patient-centred, proactive, planned, and included collaborative goal setting, problem-solving, and follow-up support. Findings reveal a discrepancy between practice and policy aspirations regarding ICP use in primary chronic illness care. More research is needed to gain insight into the effectiveness of ICPs to improve the quality of chronic illness care in various patient populations.
    Scandinavian journal of primary health care 05/2015; DOI:10.3109/02813432.2015.1030167 · 1.61 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
8 Downloads
Available from