The evolving COVID-19 outbreak is requiring social distancing and other measures to protect public health. However, messaging has been inconsistent and unclear. This study surveyed 630 adults aged ...

/pdf/awareness-attitudes-and-actions-related-to-covid-19-among-2bf1wxv6fq.pdf

Awareness, Attitudes, and Actions Related to COVID-19 Among Adults With Chronic Conditions at the Onset of the U.S. Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Survey.

Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.

Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or, It Takes at Least Two to Tango)

This article aimed to provide a descriptive review of the psychometric properties and conceptual dimensions of published health literacy measurement tools. PsycINFO and PubMed search from 1999 through 2013, review of the grey literature, and an environmental scan was conducted to identify health literacy measurement tools. For each tool, we evaluated the conceptual dimensions assessed, test parameters, and psychometric properties. Of the 51 tools identified, 26 measured general health literacy, and 15 were disease or content specific, and 10 aimed at specific populations. Most tools are performance based, require in-person administration, and are exclusively available in a pencil and paper testing mode. The tools assess 0 (proxy measure) to 9 of the 11 defined dimensions of health literacy. Reported administration times vary, from less than 1 to 60 minutes. Validation procedures for most of the tools are limited by inadequate power to ensure reliability across subgroups (i.e., race, age, ethnicity, and gender). The health literacy measurement tools currently available generally represent a narrow set of conceptual dimensions with limited modes of administration. Most of the tools lack information on key psychometric properties. Significant work is needed to establish important aspects of the construct, convergent, and predictive validity for many tools. As researchers develop new measures, inclusion of a full range of conceptual dimensions of health literacy, more representative sampling for testing, and additional modes of administration will allow a more refined and flexible approach to research in this field.

Health Literacy Measurement: An Inventory and Descriptive Summary of 51 Instruments

Zika virus pandemic-analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform.

Background: The Internet increases the availability of health information, which consequently expands the amount of skills that health care consumers must have to obtain and evaluate health information. Norman and Skinner in 2006 developed an 8-item self-report eHealth literacy scale to measure these skills: the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). This instrument has been available only in English and there are no data on its validity. Objectives: The objective of our study was to assess the internal consistency and the construct and predictive validity of a Dutch translation of the eHEALS in two populations. Methods: We examined the translated scale in a sample of patients with rheumatic diseases (n = 189; study 1) and in a stratified sample of the Dutch population (n = 88; study 2). We determined Cronbach alpha coefficients and analyzed the principal components. Convergent validity was determined by studying correlations with age, education, and current (health-related) Internet use. Furthermore, in study 2 we assessed the predictive validity of the instrument by comparing scores on the eHEALS with an actual performance test. Results: The internal consistency of the scale was sufficient: alpha = .93 in study 1 and alpha = .92 in study 2. In both studies the 8 items loaded on 1 single component (respectively 67% and 63% of variance). Correlations between eHEALS and age and education were not found. Significant, though weak, correlations were found between the eHEALS and quantity of Internet use (r = .24, P = .001 and r = .24, P = .02, respectively). Contrary to expectations, correlations between the eHEALS and successfully completed tasks on a performance test were weak and nonsignificant: r = .18 (P = .09). The t tests showed no significant differences in scores on the eHEALS between participants who scored below and above median scores of the performance test. Conclusions: The eHEALS was assessed as unidimensional in a principal component analysis and the internal consistency of the scale was high, which makes the reliability adequate. However, findings suggest that the validity of the eHEALS instrument requires further study, since the relationship with Internet use was weak and expected relationships with age, education, and actual performance were not significant. Further research to develop a self-report instrument with high correlations with people’s actual eHealth literacy skills is warranted.

/pdf/does-the-ehealth-literacy-scale-eheals-measure-what-it-4uweouzkit.pdf

Does the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? validation of a Dutch version of the eHEALS in two adult populations

Although there are a variety of models and frameworks that describe factors that are associated with health literacy skills, few illustrate the full pathway from development and moderators of health literacy skills, their application, and the outcomes that result all in one framework or model. This article introduces the Health Literacy Skills conceptual framework that does encompass this full continuum. To develop the framework, the authors reviewed and built upon existing health literacy frameworks. The Health Literacy Skills framework hypothesizes the relations between health literacy and health-related outcomes and depicts how health literacy functions at the level of the individual. The framework also reflects how factors external to the individual (e.g., family, setting, community, culture, and media) influence the constructs and relations represented in the framework. The framework is organized into 4 primary components: (a) factors that influence the development and use of health literacy skills; (b) health-related stimuli; (c) health literacy skills needed to comprehend the stimulus and perform the task; and (d) mediators between health literacy and health outcomes. Previous theoretical frameworks lend support to the proposed causal pathways it illustrates. The authors hope this conceptual framework can serve as a springboard for further discussion and advancement in operationalizing this complex construct. The Health Literacy Skills framework could also be used to guide the development of interventions to improve health literacy. Future research should be conducted to fully test the relations in the framework.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10810730.2012.713442

The health literacy skills framework.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Although a number of instruments have been used to measure health literacy, a key limitation of the leading instruments is that they only measure reading ability or print literacy and, to a limited extent, numeracy. Consequently, the present study aimed to develop a new instrument to measure an individual's health literacy using a more comprehensive and skills-based approach. First, we identified a set of skills to demonstrate and tasks to perform. Next, we selected real-world health-related stimuli to enable measurement of these skills, and then we developed survey items. After a series of cognitive interviews, the survey items were revised, developed into a 38-item instrument, and pilot tested using a Web-based panel. Based on the psychometric properties, we removed items that did not perform as well, resulting in a 25-item instrument named the Health Literacy Skills Instrument. Based on confirmatory factor analysis, the items were grouped into five subscales representing prose, document, quantitative, oral, and Internet-based information seeking skills. Construct validity was supported by correlations with the short form of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults and self-reported skills. The overall instrument demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.86. Additional analyses are planned, with the goal of creating a short form of the instrument.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10810730.2010.499987

Measuring Health Literacy: A Pilot Study of a New Skills-Based Instrument

The Public's Response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 Recommendations on Mammography Screening

As COVID-19 vaccine distribution efforts continue, public health workers can strategize about vaccine promotion in an effort to increase willingness among those who may be hesitant. In April 2020, we surveyed a national probability sample of 2279 U.S. adults using an online panel recruited through address-based sampling. Households received a computer and internet access if needed to participate in the panel. Participants were invited via e-mail and answered online survey questions about their willingness to get a novel coronavirus vaccine when one became available. The survey was completed in English and Spanish. We report weighted percentages. Most respondents were willing to get the vaccine for themselves (75%) or their children (73%). Notably, Black respondents were less willing than White respondents (47% vs. 79%, p < 0.001), while Hispanic respondents were more willing than White respondents (80% vs. 75%, p < 0.003). Females were less likely than makes (72% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). Those without insurance were less willing than the insured (47% vs. 78%, p < 0.001). Willingness to vaccinate was higher for those age 65 and older than for some younger age groups (85% for those 65 and older vs. 75% for those 50–64, p < 0.017; 72% for those 35–49, p < 0.002; 70% for those 25–34, p = NS and 75% for ages 18–24, p = NS), but other groups at increased risk because of underlying medical conditions or morbid obesity were not more willing to get vaccinated than their lower risk counterparts. Most Americans were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, but several vulnerable populations reported low willingness. Public health efforts should address these gaps as national implementation efforts continue.

/pdf/predictors-of-willingness-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-in-the-u-3nd55hqp55.pdf

Linda Squiers

Papers

The health literacy skills framework.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Measuring Health Literacy: A Pilot Study of a New Skills-Based Instrument

The Public's Response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 Recommendations on Mammography Screening

Predictors of willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.