Objectives To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve these outcomes for individuals with low health literacy. Disparities in health outcomes and effectiveness of interventions among different sociodemographic groups were also examined. Data sources We searched MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and the Educational Resources Information Center. For health literacy, we searched using a variety of terms, limited to English and studies published from 2003 to May 25, 2010. For numeracy, we searched from 1966 to May 25, 2010. Review methods We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We evaluated whether newer literature was available for answering key questions, so we broadened our definition of health literacy to include numeracy and oral (spoken) health literacy. We excluded intervention studies that did not measure health literacy directly and updated our approach to evaluate individual study risk of bias and to grade strength of evidence. Results We included good- and fair-quality studies: 81 studies addressing health outcomes (reported in 95 articles including 86 measuring health literacy and 16 measuring numeracy, of which 7 measure both) and 42 studies (reported in 45 articles) addressing interventions. Differences in health literacy level were consistently associated with increased hospitalizations, greater emergency care use, lower use of mammography, lower receipt of influenza vaccine, poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately, poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages, and, among seniors, poorer overall health status and higher mortality. Health literacy level potentially mediates disparities between blacks and whites. The strength of evidence of numeracy studies was insufficient to low, limiting conclusions about the influence of numeracy on health care service use or health outcomes. Two studies suggested numeracy may mediate the effect of disparities on health outcomes. We found no evidence concerning oral health literacy and outcomes. Among intervention studies (27 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cluster RCTs, and 13 quasi-experimental designs), the strength of evidence for specific design features was low or insufficient. However, several specific features seemed to improve comprehension in one or a few studies. The strength of evidence was moderate for the effect of mixed interventions on health care service use; the effect of intensive self-management inventions on behavior; and the effect of disease-management interventions on disease prevalence/severity. The effects of other mixed interventions on other health outcomes, including knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and quality of life, and costs were mixed; thus, the strength of evidence was insufficient. Conclusions The field of health literacy has advanced since the 2004 report. Future research priorities include justifying appropriate cutoffs for health literacy levels prior to conducting studies; developing tools that measure additional related skills, particularly oral (spoken) health literacy; and examining mediators and moderators of the effect of health literacy. Priorities in advancing the design features of interventions include testing novel approaches to increase motivation, techniques for delivering information orally or numerically, "work around" interventions such as patient advocates; determining the effective components of already-tested interventions; determining the cost-effectiveness of programs; and determining the effect of policy and practice interventions.

/pdf/health-literacy-interventions-and-outcomes-an-updated-chswt8nilu.pdf

Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/bv73c226n

National Lipid Association Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia: Part 2.

Context Little is known about the effects of low health literacy among patients with heart failure, a condition that requires self-management and frequent interactions with the health care system. Objective To evaluate the association between low health literacy and all-cause mortality and hospitalization among outpatients with heart failure. Design, Setting, and Patients Retrospective cohort study conducted at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, an integrated managed care organization. Outpatients with heart failure were identified between January 2001 and May 2008, were surveyed by mail, and underwent follow-up for a median of 1.2 years. Health literacy was assessed using 3 established screening questions and categorized as adequate or low. Responders were excluded if they did not complete at least 1 health literacy question or if they did not have at least 1 year of enrollment prior to the survey date. Main Outcome Measures All-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization. Results Of the 2156 patients surveyed, 1547 responded (72% response rate). Of 1494 included responders, 262 (17.5%) had low health literacy. Patients with low health literacy were older, of lower socioeconomic status, less likely to have at least a high school education, and had higher rates of coexisting illnesses. In multivariable Cox regression, low health literacy was independently associated with higher mortality (unadjusted rate, 17.6% vs 6.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.97]; P = .001) but not hospitalization (unadjusted rate, 30.5% vs 23.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.37]; P = .73). Conclusion Among patients with heart failure in an integrated managed care organization, low health literacy was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/899405/joc15035_1695_1701.pdf

Health literacy and outcomes among patients with heart failure.

Health literacy: applying current concepts to improve health services and reduce health inequalities.

This study estimated health status by low health literacy and limited English proficiency alone and in combination for Latino, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and White respondents in a population-based sample: 48,427 adults from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey, including 3,715 with limited English proficiency. Multivariate logistic models examined self-reported health by health literacy and English proficiency in the full sample and in racial/ethnic subgroups. Overall, 44.9% with limited English proficiency reported low health literacy, versus 13.8% of English speakers. Among the limited English proficient, Chinese respondents had the highest prevalence of low health literacy (68.3%), followed by Latinos (45.3%), Koreans (35.6%), Vietnamese (29.7%), and Whites (18.8%). In the full sample, respondents with both limited English proficiency/low health literacy reported the highest prevalence of poor health (45.1%), followed by limited English proficiency–only (41.1%), low health literacy–only (22.2...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10810730.2012.712621

Low Health Literacy, Limited English Proficiency, and Health Status in Asians, Latinos, and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in California

Previous studies have shown that a single question may identify individuals with inadequate health literacy. We evaluated and compared the performance of 3 health literacy screening questions for detecting patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy in a large VA population. We conducted in-person interviews among a random sample of patients from 4 VA medical centers that included 3 health literacy screening questions and 2 validated health literacy measures. Patients were classified as having inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy based on the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM). We evaluated the ability of each of 3 questions to detect: 1) inadequate and the combination of “inadequate or marginal” health literacy based on the S-TOFHLA and 2) inadequate and the combination of “inadequate or marginal” health literacy based on the REALM. Of 4,384 patients, 1,796 (41%) completed interviews. The prevalences of inadequate health literacy were 6.8% and 4.2%, based on the S-TOHFLA and REALM, respectively. Comparable prevalences for marginal health literacy were 7.4% and 17%, respectively. For detecting inadequate health literacy, “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” had the largest area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69–0.79) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79–0.89) based on the S-TOFHLA and REALM, respectively. AUROCs were lower for detecting “inadequate or marginal” health literacy than for detecting inadequate health literacy for each of the 3 questions. A single question may be useful for detecting patients with inadequate health literacy in a VA population.

/pdf/validation-of-screening-questions-for-limited-health-4jkwry8jst.pdf

Michelle Vanryn

Papers

Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population