19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

            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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

              Summary Objectives Effective and efficient communication is crucial in healthcare. Written communication remains the most prevalent form of communication between specialised and primary care. We aimed at reviewing the literature on the quality of written communication, the impact of communication inefficiencies and recommendations to improve written communication in healthcare. Design Narrative literature review. Methods A search was carried out on the databases PubMed, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library by means of the (MeSH)terms ‘communication’, ‘primary health care’, ‘correspondence’, ‘patient safety’, ‘patient handoff’ and ‘continuity of patient care’. Reviewers screened 4609 records and 462 full texts were checked according following inclusion criteria: (1) publication between January 1985 and March 2014, (2) availability as full text in English, (3) categorisation as original research, reviews, meta‐analyses or letters to the editor. Results A total of 69 articles were included in this review. It was found that poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes: discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction and inefficient use of valuable resources, both in unnecessary investigations and physician worktime as well as economic consequences. Conclusion There is room for improvement of both content and timeliness of written communication. The delineation of ownership of the communication process should be clear. Peer review, process indicators and follow‐up tools are required to measure the impact of quality improvement initiatives. Communication between caregivers should feature more prominently in graduate and postgraduate training, to become engraved as an essential skill and quality characteristic of each caregiver.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                19 June 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 6
                : e0234926
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Nivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [2 ] Department of Tranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
                [3 ] Pharos, Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [4 ] Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI (Care and Public Health Research Institute), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [5 ] Radboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [6 ] Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway
                Independent Researcher, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7315-4367
                Article
                PONE-D-20-02928
                10.1371/journal.pone.0234926
                7304585
                32559237
                0cfe29fc-0da3-46e3-aca3-7ffab8ddcb22
                © 2020 Roodbeen et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 31 January 2020
                : 4 June 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 20
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001826, ZonMw;
                Award ID: Palliantie: 844001403
                This work was supported by awards from ZonMw (the Netherlands Organisation for Health and Research Development) project number 844001403 to authors RR, GB, JR, MvdM, JN, and SvD. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No commercial companies funded the study or authors.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Palliative Care
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Education and Awareness
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Communications
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Communications
                Social Communication
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancer Treatment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content110

                Cited by16

                Most referenced authors399