Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information

OBJECTIVE

To develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess the understandability and actionability of print and audiovisual materials.

METHODS

We compiled items from existing instruments/guides that the expert panel assessed for face/content validity. We completed four rounds of reliability testing, and produced evidence of construct validity with consumers and readability assessments.

RESULTS

The experts deemed the PEMAT items face/content valid. Four rounds of reliability testing and refinement were conducted using raters untrained on the PEMAT. Agreement improved across rounds. The final PEMAT showed moderate agreement per Kappa (Average K=0.57) and strong agreement per Gwet's AC1 (Average=0.74). Internal consistency was strong (α=0.71; Average Item-Total Correlation=0.62). For construct validation with consumers (n=47), we found significant differences between actionable and poorly-actionable materials in comprehension scores (76% vs. 63%, p<0.05) and ratings (8.9 vs. 7.7, p<0.05). For understandability, there was a significant difference for only one of two topics on consumer numeric scores. For actionability, there were significant positive correlations between PEMAT scores and consumer-testing results, but no relationship for understandability. There were, however, strong, negative correlations between grade-level and both consumer-testing results and PEMAT scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEMAT demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability, and evidence of construct validity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The PEMAT can help professionals judge the quality of materials (available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/pemat).

Association between low functional health literacy and mortality in older adults: longitudinal cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between low functional health literacy (ability to read and understand basic health related information) and mortality in older adults.

DESIGN

Population based longitudinal cohort study based on a stratified random sample of households.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

7857 adults aged 52 or more who participated in the second wave (2004-5) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and survived more than 12 months after interview. Participants completed a brief four item test of functional health literacy, which assessed understanding of written instructions for taking an aspirin tablet.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to death, based on all cause mortality through October 2009.

RESULTS

Health literacy was categorised as high (maximum score, 67.2%), medium (one error, 20.3%), or low (more than one error, 12.5%). During follow-up (mean 5.3 years) 621 deaths occurred: 321 (6.1%) in the high health literacy category, 143 (9.0%) in the medium category, and 157 (16.0%) in the low category. After adjusting for personal characteristics, socioeconomic position, baseline health, and health behaviours, the hazard ratio for all cause mortality for participants with low health literacy was 1.40 (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.72) and with medium health literacy was 1.15 (0.94 to 1.41) compared with participants with high health literacy. Further adjustment for cognitive ability reduced the hazard ratio for low health literacy to 1.26 (1.02 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

A third of older adults in England have difficulties reading and understanding basic health related written information. Poorer understanding is associated with higher mortality. The limited health literacy capabilities within this population have implications for the design and delivery of health related services for older adults in England.

Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: a systematic review

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently called for action on health literacy. An important first step is defining the current state of the literature about interventions designed to mitigate the effects of low health literacy. We performed an updated systematic review examining the effects of interventions that authors reported were specifically designed to mitigate the effects of low health literacy. We searched MEDLINE®, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the Cochrane Library databases (2003 forward for health literacy; 1966 forward for numeracy). Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for inclusion and included studies that examined outcomes by health literacy level and met other pre-specified criteria. One reviewer abstracted article information into evidence tables; a second checked accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated study quality using predefined criteria. Among 38 included studies, we found multiple discrete design features that improved comprehension in one or a few studies (e.g., presenting essential information by itself or first, presenting information so that the higher number is better, adding icon arrays to numerical information, adding video to verbal narratives). In a few studies, we also found consistent, direct, fair or good-quality evidence that intensive self-management interventions reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations; and intensive self- and disease-management interventions reduced disease severity. Evidence for the effects of interventions on other outcomes was either limited or mixed. Multiple interventions show promise for mitigating the effects of low health literacy and could be considered for use in clinical practice.

The Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS): A new scale-based measure of mental health literacy

Although Mental Health Literacy (MHL) has been a topic of substantial interest, measurement of this concept using a scale-based measure has been limited, including a lack of psychometric and methodologically robust scale-based measures of MHL. This study developed a new scale-based measure of MHL, the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS), which assesses all attributes of MHL. Construction of the MHLS was done over three key stages, including measure development, pilot testing and assessment of psychometrics and methodological quality. The resulting measure is a 35 item, univariate scale that is easily administered and scored. Results showed significant differences in scores between mental health professionals and a community sample, as well as individuals with greater experience with mental health, and a significant positive relationship with help-seeking intentions. The MHLS also demonstrated good internal and test-retest reliability. Evaluation of the methodological quality of the MHLS indicated that it has substantial methodological advantages in comparison to existing scale-based measures of MHL. The MHLS can be used in assessing individual and population level differences in MHL and in determining the impact of programmes designed to improve MHL.

Critical appraisal of health literacy indices revealed variable underlying constructs, narrow content and psychometric weaknesses

OBJECTIVE

Health literacy refers to an individual's ability to seek, understand, and use health information. A range of indices exist that purport to measure health literacy across individuals and populations. This study aimed to review the development and content of existing indices and to critically appraise their properties.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using standardized search terms, published generic health literacy indices (1990-2008) were identified. Using a methodological framework, each was evaluated for purpose, validity (face, content, construct), reliability, responsiveness, feasibility, and generalizability.

RESULTS

Nineteen instruments were evaluated. Three measurement approaches were identified: direct testing of individual abilities, self-report of abilities, and population-based proxy measures. Composition of underlying constructs and content varied widely across instruments, and none appeared to fully measure a person's ability to seek, understand, and use health information. The content was focused primarily on reading comprehension and numeracy; scoring categories were poorly defined and may not be mutually exclusive, and few indices had been assessed for reliability.

CONCLUSION

Health literacy is not consistently measured, making it difficult to interpret and compare health literacy at individual and population levels. Empirical evidence demonstrating validity and reliability of existing indices is required, and more comprehensive health literacy instruments need to be developed.

Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of flesch formula

BACKGROUND

Written health information is commonly used by health-care professionals (HCPs) to inform and assess patients in clinical practice. With growing self-management of many health conditions and increased information seeking behavior among patients, there is a greater stress on HCPs and researchers to develop and implement readable and understandable health information. Readability formulas such as Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) are commonly used by researchers and HCPs to assess if health information is reading grade appropriate for patients.

PURPOSE

In this article, we critically analyze the role and credibility of Flesch formula in assessing the reading level of written health information.

DISCUSSION

FRE and FKRGL assign a grade level by measuring semantic and syntactic difficulty. They serve as a simple tool that provides some information about the potential literacy difficulty of written health information. However, health information documents often involve complex medical words and may incorporate pictures and tables to improve the legibility. In their assessments, FRE and FKRGL do not take into account (1) document factors (layout, pictures and charts, color, font, spacing, legibility, and grammar), (2) person factors (education level, comprehension, health literacy, motivation, prior knowledge, information needs, anxiety levels), and (3) style of writing (cultural sensitivity, comprehensiveness, and appropriateness), and thus, inadequately assess reading level. New readability measures incorporate pictures and use complex algorithms to assess reading level but are only moderately used in health-care research and not in clinical practice. Future research needs to develop generic and disease-specific readability measures to evaluate comprehension of a written document based on individuals' literacy levels, cultural background, and knowledge of disease.

Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other

Widespread use of health information technology (IT) could potentially increase patients' access to their health information and facilitate future goals of advancing patient-centered care. Despite having increased access to their health data, patients do not always understand this information or its implications, and digital health data can be difficult to navigate when displayed in a small-format, complex interface. In this paper, we discuss two forms of patient-facing health IT tools-patient portals and applications (apps)-and highlight how, despite several limitations of each, combining high-yield features of mobile health (mHealth) apps with portals could increase patient engagement and self-management and be more effective than either of them alone. Patient portal adoption is variable, and due to design and interface limitations and health literacy issues, many people find the portal difficult to use. Conversely, apps have experienced rapid adoption and traditionally have more consumer-friendly features with easy log-in access, real-time tracking, and simplified data display. These features make the applications more intuitive and easy-to-use than patient portals. While apps have their own limitations and might serve different purposes, patient portals could adopt some high-yield features and functions of apps that lead to engagement success with patients. We thus suggest that to improve user experience with future portals, developers could look towards mHealth apps in design, function, and user interface. Adding new features to portals may improve their use and empower patients to track their overall health and disease states. Nevertheless, both these health IT tools should be subjected to rigorous evaluation to ensure they meet their potential in improving patient outcomes.

Health literacy in type 2 diabetes patients: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Aim To summarize, critically review, and interpret the evidence related to the systematic reviews on health literacy (HL) amongst type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods The methodology for this study consisted of a systematic review of systematic reviews, using the PRISMA statement and flowchart to select studies, and searching on PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search covered the period between January 2006 and June 2016. Results From the 115 identified record by the queries, only six systematic reviews were included, following a quality evaluation using AMSTAR. The included systematic reviews content was analyzed by the independent work of two authors, using a narrative synthesis approach. The findings of this study (i.e., main themes) are areas of consensus and gaps in knowledge. Areas of consensus are HL definition, HL measurement tools, and the relationship between T2DM patient knowledge (or literacy) and his/her HL. The gaps in knowledge were the assessment of the relations between HL and health outcomes and self-efficacy, the gender differences, the effectiveness of interventions to improve HL, the cost-effectiveness study of interventions to improve HL, and the understanding of the influence of organizational environment on HL. Conclusion This review provides a current state of knowledge to address clinical practice and research proposals. HL could be useful to personalize patients' follow-up and it should be routinely assessed in its three dimensions (i.e. functional, interactive and critical) to enhance patients' ability to cope with clinical recommendations. Future research should be mainly aimed to test the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions to improve HL amongst T2DM patients.

Development and validation of a measure of health literacy in the UK: the newest vital sign

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is an important public health issue. Current measures have drawbacks in length and/or acceptability. The US-developed Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy instrument measures both reading comprehension and numeracy skills using a nutrition label, takes 3 minutes to administer, and has proven to be acceptable to research subjects. This study aimed to amend and validate it for the UK population.

METHODS

We used a three-stage process; (1) a Delphi study with academic and clinical experts to amend the NVS label to reflect UK nutrition labeling (2) community-based cognitive testing to assess and improve ease of understanding and acceptability of the test (3) validation of the NVS-UK against an accepted standard test of health literacy, the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) (Pearson's r and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve) and participant educational level. A sample size calculation indicated that 250 participants would be required. Inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years and ability to converse in English. We excluded people working in the health field and those with impaired vision or inability to undertake the interview due to cognitive impairment or inability to converse in English.

RESULTS

In the Delphi study, 28 experts reached consensus (3 cycles). Cognitive testing (80 participants) yielded an instrument that needed no further refinement. Validation testing (337 participants) showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.74). Validation against the TOFHLA demonstrated a Pearson's r of 0.49 and an area under the ROC curve of 0.81.

CONCLUSIONS

The NVS-UK is a valid measure of HL. Its acceptability and ease of application makes it an ideal tool for use in the UK. It has potential uses in public health research including epidemiological surveys and randomized controlled trials, and in enabling practitioners to tailor care to patient need.

Health literacy and the quality of physician-patient communication during hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Overall, poor physician-patient communication is related to post-discharge adverse events and readmission. We analyzed patients' ratings of the quality of physician-patient communication during hospitalization and how this varies by health literacy.

METHODS

Medical patients were interviewed during their hospitalization to assess personal characteristics and health literacy. After discharge, patients completed by telephone the 27-item Interpersonal Processes of Care in Diverse Populations Questionnaire (IPC). Using the IPC, patients rated the clarity and quality of physicians' communication during the hospitalization along the following 8 domains: General clarity, Responsiveness to patient concerns, Explanation of patients' problems, Explanation of processes of care, Explanation of self-care after discharge, Empowerment, Decision making, and Consideration of patients' desire and ability to comply with recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients completed both the in-hospital and telephone interviews. Subjects had a mean age of 55, and 44% had inadequate health literacy. Overall, patients gave the poorest ratings to communication that related to Consideration of patients' desire and ability to comply with recommendations. Patients with inadequate health literacy gave significantly worse ratings on the domains of General clarity, Responsiveness to patient concerns, and Explanation of processes of care (P < 0.05 for each). In multivariable analyses, the relationship with General clarity did not persist.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians received relatively poor ratings on their Consideration of patients' desire and ability to comply with recommendations. Patients with inadequate health literacy experienced lower quality and clarity of hospital communication along multiple domains. More attention to effective health communication is warranted in the hospital setting.

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one's skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. To identify studies, we started with an AHRQ-funded systematic review of HL and health outcomes. We then looked for newer studies by searching MEDLINE from 1 February 2010 to 9 December 2014. We included English language studies meeting pre-specified criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and studies for inclusion and graded study quality. One reviewer abstracted information from included studies while a second checked content for accuracy.

RESULTS

We identified four "fair" quality studies that met inclusion criteria for our review. Two studies measuring HL found no differences between performance-based and self-reported HL for association with self-reported outcomes (including diabetes, stroke, hypertension) or a physician-completed rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score. However, HL measures were differentially related to a patient-completed health assessment questionnaire and to a patient's ability to interpret their prescription medication name and dose from a medication bottle. Only one study measured numeracy and found no difference between performance-based and self-reported measures of numeracy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. However, in a moderator analysis from the same study, performance-based and self-reported numeracy were differentially related to CRC screening utilization when stratified by certain patient-provider communication behaviors (e.g., the chance to always ask questions and get the support that is needed).

DISCUSSION

Most studies found no difference in the relationship between results of performance-based and self-reported measures and outcomes. However, we identified few studies using multiple instruments and/or objective outcomes.

Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the interrater reliability (IRR) and usability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and the relationship between PEMAT scores and readability levels.

METHODS

One hundred ten materials (80 print, 30 audiovisual) were evaluated, each by two raters, using the PEMAT. IRR was calculated using Gwet's AC1 and summarized across items in each PEMAT domain (understandability and actionability) and by material type. A survey was conducted to solicit raters' experience using the PEMAT. Readability of each material was assessed using the SMOG Index.

RESULTS

The median IRR was 0.92 for understandability and 0.93 for actionability across all relevant items, indicating good IRR. Eight PEMAT items had Gwet's AC1 values less than 0.81. PEMAT and SMOG Index scores were inversely correlated, with a Spearman's rho of -0.20 (p=0.081) for understandability and -0.15 (p=0.194) for actionability. While 92% of raters agreed the PEMAT was easy to use, survey results suggested specific items for clarification.

CONCLUSION

While the PEMAT demonstrates moderate to excellent IRR overall, amendments to items with lower IRR may increase the usefulness of the tool.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The PEMAT is a useful supplement to reading level alone in the assessment of educational materials.

"End-of-Life Care? I'm not Going to Worry About That Yet." Health Literacy Gaps and End-of-Life Planning Among Elderly Dialysis Patients

Purpose

Between 2000 and 2012, the incident dialysis population in the United States increased by nearly 60%, most sharply among adults 75 years and older. End-of-life (EOL) conversations among dialysis patients are associated with better patient-centered outcomes and lower use of aggressive interventions in the last month of life. This study examined how health literacy may affect engagement, comprehension, and satisfaction with EOL conversations among elderly dialysis patients.

Design and Methods

Qualitative/descriptive study with semi-structured interviews about health literacy, EOL conversations, and goals of care with 31 elderly dialysis patients at 2 centers in Boston. Themes were interpreted in the context of Nutbeam's health literacy framework.

Results

Despite high mortality risk in this population, only 13% of patients had discussed EOL preferences with physicians, half had discussed EOL with their social network, and 25% of participants explicitly stated that they had never considered EOL preferences. Less than 30% of participants could correctly define terminology commonly used in EOL conversations. Analyses yielded 5 themes: (1) Misunderstanding EOL terminology; (2) Nephrologists reluctant to discuss EOL; (3) Patients conforming to socially constructed roles; (4) Discordant expectations and dialysis experiences; and (5) Reconciling EOL values and future care. Patients had limited understanding of EOL terminology, lacked of opportunities for meaningful EOL discussion with providers and family, resulting in uncertainty about future care.

Implications

Limited health literacy presents a substantial barrier to communication and could lead to older adults committing to an intensive pattern of care without adequate information. Clinicians should consider health literacy when discussing dialysis initiation.

Communication and shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy; helpful strategies, barriers and suggestions for improvement reported by hospital-based palliative care providers

BACKGROUND

Communication and shared decision-making (SDM) are essential to patient-centered care. Hospital-based palliative care with patients with limited health literacy (LHL) poses particular demands on communication. In this context, patients' emotions and vulnerable condition impact their skills to obtain, understand, process and apply information about health and healthcare even more. If healthcare providers (HCPs) meet these demands, it could enhance communication. In this study, HCPs were interviewed and asked for their strategies, barriers and suggestions for improvement regarding communication and SDM with LHL patients in hospital-based palliative care.

METHODS

A qualitative interview study was conducted in 2018 in four Dutch hospitals with 17 HCPs-11 physicians and 6 nurses. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

In general HCPs recognized limited literacy as a concept, however, they did not recognize limited health literacy. Regarding SDM some HCPs were strong advocates, others did not believe in SDM as a concept and perceived it as unfeasible. Furthermore, five themes, acting as either strategies, barriers or suggestions for improvement emerged from the interviews: 1) time management; 2) HCPs' communication skills; 3) information tailoring; 4) characteristics of patients and significant others; 5) the content of the medical information.

CONCLUSIONS

According to HCPs, more time to communicate with their patients could resolve the most prominent barriers emerged from this study. Further research should investigate the organizational possibilities for this and the actual effectiveness of additional time on effective communication and SDM. Additionally, more awareness for the concept of LHL is needed as a precondition for recognizing LHL. Furthermore, future research should be directed towards opportunities for tailoring communication, and the extent to which limited knowledge and complex information affect communication and SDM. This study provides first insights into perspectives of HCPs, indicating directions for research on communication, SDM and LHL in hospital-based palliative care.

Health literacy as a social practice: Social and empirical dimensions of knowledge on health and healthcare

Health literacy has become a hot topic in health research and public health promotion. Most definitions specify health literacy as an individual cognitive skill, and surveys such as the EU-HLS which ask people to self-rate their decision-making capacity in the health system, grade a majority of the population as having an inadequate health literacy. Inspired by a praxeological understanding of knowledge and based on an empirical study on welfare bricolage in superdiverse urban neighborhoods, this paper explores health literacy ethnographically and highlights people's knowledge, creative practices and experiences concerning health and healthcare. It draws on 42 semi-structured interviews conducted with a highly diverse sample of residents in Bremen, Germany, between September 2015 and April 2017. The interviews were analyzed with the help of collaborative systematic thematic analysis. The findings question the individualistic and rationalistic bias of conventional approaches to health literacy and suggest that health literacy as a social practice is situational, multidimensional - comprised of different sources and forms of knowledge - and co-produced in social relations. This reformulation of the concept suggests that future research on health literacy should adopt a resource-oriented approach and embrace the rich variety of health knowledge practices.

A randomized controlled trial of a literacy-sensitive self-management intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

BACKGROUND

Low literacy skills are common and associated with a variety of poor health outcomes. This may be particularly important in patients with chronic illnesses such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that require appropriate inhaler technique to maintain quality of life and avoid exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of a literacy-sensitive self-management intervention on inhaler technique scores in COPD patients and to determine if effects differ by literacy.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-nine patients with COPD.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to a one-on-one self-management educational intervention or usual care. The intervention focused on inhaler technique, smoking cessation, and using a COPD action plan.

MAIN MEASURES

At baseline, an inhaler technique assessment, literacy assessment, health-related quality of life questionnaires, and pulmonary function tests were completed. Inhaler technique was re-evaluated after two to eight weeks.

KEY RESULTS

Mean age 63, 65% female, 69% Caucasian, moderate COPD severity on average, 36% with low literacy, moderately impaired health-related quality of life, and similar baseline metered dose inhaler technique scores. Patients in the intervention group had greater mean improvement from baseline in metered dose inhaler technique score compared to those in the usual care group (difference in mean change 2.1, 95% CI 1.1, 3.0). The patients in the intervention group also had greater mean improvements in metered dose inhaler technique score than those in the usual care group whether they had low health literacy (difference in mean change 2.8, 95% CI 0.6, 4.9) or higher health literacy (1.8, 95% CI 0.7, 2.9).

CONCLUSIONS

A literacy-sensitive self-management intervention can lead to improvements in inhaler technique, with benefits for patients with both low and higher health literacy.

International application of health literacy measures: adaptation and validation of the newest vital sign in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

The newest vital sign assesses individual reading and numeracy skills. The aim of this study was to create a Dutch version (NVS-D) and to assess its feasibility, reliability, and validity in The Netherlands.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study among experts (n=27) and patients (n=30) to develop the NVS-D and to assess its feasibility. For validation, we conducted a quantitative survey (n=329). Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was examined by analyzing association patterns. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined optimal cut-off scores.

RESULTS

Cronbach's alpha was 0.76. In accordance with a priori hypotheses we found strong associations between NVS-D, general vocabulary, prose literacy and objective health literacy, and weaker associations between NVS-D and subjective health literacy. A score of ≥4 out of 6 best distinguished individuals with adequate versus inadequate health literacy.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the NVS-D is a reliable and valid tool that allows international comparable health literacy research in The Netherlands.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The NVS-D can be applied in research on the role of health literacy in health and health care, and the development of interventions. The methods can be applied in cross-cultural adaptation of health literacy measures in other countries.

Inadequate health literacy among paid caregivers of seniors

BACKGROUND

Many seniors rely on paid non-familial caregivers to maintain their independence at home. Caregivers often assist with medication reminding and activities of daily living. No prior studies have examined the health literacy levels among paid non-familial caregivers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine health literacy levels and the health-related responsibilities of paid non-familial caregivers of seniors.

DESIGN

One-on-one face-to-face surveys. The Test for Functional Health Literacy (TOFHLA) was administered to identify health literacy levels. Caregivers were asked to demonstrate their skill in medication use by following directions on pill bottles and sorting medications into pill boxes.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-eight paid unrelated caregivers of seniors recruited at physician offices, caregiver agencies, senior shopping areas, and independent living facilities.

RESULTS

Average age of caregivers was 49.5 years, and 86.7% were female. Inadequate health literacy was found in 35.7% of caregivers; 60.2% of all caregivers made errors with the pillbox test medications, showing difficulty in following label directions. Health-related tasks (i.e., medication reminding, sorting, dispensing, and accompanying seniors to physician appointments) were performed by 85.7% of caregivers. The mean age of their seniors was 83.9 years (range 65-99 years), and 82.1% were female.

CONCLUSION

Paid non-familial caregivers are essential for many seniors to remain independent and maintain their health. Many caregivers perform health-related duties, but over 1/3 have inadequate health literacy and have difficulties following medication-related instructions. Educating caregivers and ascertaining their health literacy levels prior to assigning health-related tasks may be an important process in providing optimal care to seniors.

Characteristics associated with postdischarge medication errors

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of patient- and medication-related factors with postdischarge medication errors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Vanderbilt Inpatient Cohort Study includes adults hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes and/or acute decompensated heart failure. We measured health literacy, subjective numeracy, marital status, cognition, social support, educational attainment, income, depression, global health status, and medication adherence in patients enrolled from October 1, 2011, through August 31, 2012. We used binomial logistic regression to determine predictors of discordance between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported list during postdischarge medication review.

RESULTS

Among 471 patients (mean age, 59 years), the mean total number of medications reported was 12, and 79 patients (16.8%) had inadequate or marginal health literacy. A total of 242 patients (51.4%) were taking 1 or more discordant medication (ie, appeared on either the discharge list or patient-reported list but not both), 129 (27.4%) failed to report a medication on their discharge list, and 168 (35.7%) reported a medication not on their discharge list. In addition, 279 participants (59.2%) had a misunderstanding in indication, dose, or frequency in a cardiac medication. In multivariable analyses, higher subjective numeracy (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98) was associated with lower odds of having discordant medications. For cardiac medications, participants with higher health literacy (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), with higher subjective numeracy (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95), and who were female (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.78) had lower odds of misunderstandings in indication, dose, or frequency.

CONCLUSION

Medication errors are present in approximately half of patients after hospital discharge and are more common among patients with lower numeracy or health literacy.

Mobile Health Application and e-Health Literacy: Opportunities and Concerns for Cancer Patients and Caregivers

Health literacy is critical for cancer patients as they must understand complex procedures or treatment options. Caregivers' health literacy also plays a crucial role in caring for cancer patients. Low health literacy is associated with low adherence to medications, poor health status, and increased health care costs. There is a growing interest in the use of mobile health applications (apps) to improve health literacy. Mobile health apps can empower underserved cancer patients and their caregivers by providing features or functionalities to enhance interactive patient-provider communication and to understand medical information more readily. Despite the potentiality of improving health literacy through mobile health apps, there exist several related concerns: no equal access to mobile technology, no familiarity or knowledge of using mobile health apps, and privacy and security concerns. These elements should be taken into account for health policy making and mobile apps design and development. Importantly, mobile apps should be developed with the goal of achieving a high range of user access by considering all health literacy level and various cultural and linguistic needs.

Integrating support persons into diabetes telemonitoring to improve self-management and medication adherence

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential benefits for medication adherence of integrating a patient-selected support person into an automated diabetes telemonitoring and self-management program, and to determine whether these benefits vary by patients' baseline level of psychological distress.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was a quasi-experimental patient preference trial.

METHODS

The study included patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in three to six months of weekly automated telemonitoring via interactive voice response (IVR) calls, with the option of designating a supportive relative or friend to receive automated updates on the patient's health and self-management, along with guidance regarding potential patient assistance. We measured long-term medication adherence using the four-point Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4, possible range 0-4), weekly adherence with an IVR item, and psychological distress at baseline with the Mental Composite Summary (MCS) of the SF-12.

RESULTS

Of 98 initially nonadherent patients, 42% opted to involve a support person. Participants with a support person demonstrated significantly greater improvement in long-term adherence than those who participated alone (linear regression slopes: -1.17 vs. -0.57, respectively, p =0.001). Among distressed patients in particular, the odds of weekly nonadherence tended to decrease 25% per week for those with a support person (p =0.030), yet remained high for those who participated alone (p =0.820).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their multiple challenges in illness self-management, patients with diabetes who are both nonadherent and psychologically distressed may benefit by the incorporation of a support person when they receive assistance via automated telemonitoring.

Radiation Oncology and Online Patient Education Materials: Deviating From NIH and AMA Recommendations

PURPOSE

Physicians encourage patients to be informed about their health care options, but much of the online health care-related resources can be beneficial only if patients are capable of comprehending it. This study's aim was to assess the readability level of online patient education resources for radiation oncology to conclude whether they meet the general public's health literacy needs as determined by the guidelines of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA).

METHODS

Radiation oncology-related internet-based patient education materials were downloaded from 5 major professional websites (American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Brachytherapy Society, RadiologyInfo.org, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group). Additional patient education documents were downloaded by searching for key radiation oncology phrases using Google. A total of 135 articles were downloaded and assessed for their readability level using 10 quantitative readability scales that are widely accepted in the medical literature.

RESULTS

When all 10 assessment tools for readability were taken into account, the 135 online patient education articles were written at an average grade level of 13.7 ± 2.0. One hundred nine of the 135 articles (80.7%) required a high school graduate's comprehension level (12th-grade level or higher). Only 1 of the 135 articles (0.74%) met the AMA and NIH recommendations for patient education resources to be written between the third-grade and seventh-grade levels.

CONCLUSION

Radiation oncology websites have patient education material written at an educational level above the NIH and AMA recommendations; as a result, average American patients may not be able to fully understand them. Rewriting radiation oncology patient education resources would likely contribute to the patients' understanding of their health and treatment options, making each physician-patient interaction more productive and efficient.

Online decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patients

OBJECTIVES

Recent guideline changes for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention medication have resulted in calls to implement shared decision-making rather than arbitrary treatment thresholds. Less attention has been paid to existing tools that could facilitate this. Decision aids are well-established tools that enable shared decision-making and have been shown to improve CVD prevention adherence. However, it is unknown how many CVD decision aids are publicly available for patients online, what their quality is like and whether they are suitable for patients with lower health literacy, for whom the burden of CVD is greatest. This study aimed to identify and evaluate all English language, publicly available online CVD prevention decision aids.

DESIGN

Systematic review of public websites in August to November 2016 using an environmental scan methodology, with updated evaluation in April 2018. The decision aids were evaluated based on: (1) suitability for low health literacy populations (understandability, actionability and readability); and (2) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Understandability and actionability using the validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P scale), readability using Gunning-Fog and Flesch-Kincaid indices and quality using IPDAS V.3 and V.4.

RESULTS

A total of 25 unique decision aids were identified. On the PEMAT-P scale, the decision aids scored well on understandability (mean 87%) but not on actionability (mean 61%). Readability was also higher than recommended levels (mean Gunning-Fog index=10.1; suitable for grade 10 students). Four decision aids met criteria to be considered a decision aid (ie, met IPDAS qualifying criteria) and one sufficiently minimised major bias (ie, met IPDAS certification criteria).

CONCLUSIONS

Publicly available CVD prevention decision aids are not suitable for low literacy populations and only one met international standards for certification. Given that patients with lower health literacy are at increased risk of CVD, this urgently needs to be addressed.