13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      When great responsibility comes with limited options: experiences and needs of older community-dwelling adults regarding accessing, understanding, appraising and using health-related information

      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

          In previous research, older adults have been associated with reduced levels of health literacy (HL) influenced by a range of contextual factors. To optimise HL, it is essential to better understand the interactions between the ageing process and both personal and environmental factors as perceived by older adults. This study aimed to explore the experiences and needs of older community-dwelling adults when accessing, understanding, appraising and using health-related information.

          Methods

          An explorative, qualitative design was used within the social constructivism framework. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 adults aged 70–96 living at home in three areas in Northern Iceland. The transcribed interviews were constructed into categories and subcategories using qualitative content analysis.

          Findings.

          Four categories emerged. “Expectations for responsibility” describes the experience that individuals are responsible for taking care of their health, including accessing, understanding, appraising and using information and services, showing initiative and keeping needed communications active. “A gap between expectancy and ability/context” includes experiences while taking responsibility for expectations not aligning with skills/situations, creating information gaps. “Finding one’s own ways” comprises various adapted ways to access, understand, and use information and services. “Bridging the gap” describes experiences of needing shared responsibility and more manageable options to enable reasoned health-related decisions and navigation in the healthcare system.

          Conclusions

          The participants valued and took full responsibility for accessing, understanding, appraising and using information and services as part of a social norm; however, they experience information gaps. They request shared responsibility by being provided with fundamental health-related information as a vital step in making reasoned health-related decisions and navigating the healthcare system. They also request more inclusive and accessible service opportunities to bridge the gaps and facilitate HL. It is necessary to critically address, at a systematic level, the conflict between expected individual responsibility and the existence of options to act upon this responsibility. In matters of health, health services and HL, the need to analyse and confront structural disadvantages experienced by older adults is highlighted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

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

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness.

            Qualitative content analysis as described in published literature shows conflicting opinions and unsolved issues regarding meaning and use of concepts, procedures and interpretation. This paper provides an overview of important concepts (manifest and latent content, unit of analysis, meaning unit, condensation, abstraction, content area, code, category and theme) related to qualitative content analysis; illustrates the use of concepts related to the research procedure; and proposes measures to achieve trustworthiness (credibility, dependability and transferability) throughout the steps of the research procedure. Interpretation in qualitative content analysis is discussed in light of Watzlawick et al.'s [Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London] theory of communication.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models

              Background Health literacy concerns the knowledge and competences of persons to meet the complex demands of health in modern society. Although its importance is increasingly recognised, there is no consensus about the definition of health literacy or about its conceptual dimensions, which limits the possibilities for measurement and comparison. The aim of the study is to review definitions and models on health literacy to develop an integrated definition and conceptual model capturing the most comprehensive evidence-based dimensions of health literacy. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify definitions and conceptual frameworks of health literacy. A content analysis of the definitions and conceptual frameworks was carried out to identify the central dimensions of health literacy and develop an integrated model. Results The review resulted in 17 definitions of health literacy and 12 conceptual models. Based on the content analysis, an integrative conceptual model was developed containing 12 dimensions referring to the knowledge, motivation and competencies of accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion setting, respectively. Conclusions Based upon this review, a model is proposed integrating medical and public health views of health literacy. The model can serve as a basis for developing health literacy enhancing interventions and provide a conceptual basis for the development and validation of measurement tools, capturing the different dimensions of health literacy within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion settings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sonjag@unak.is
                Journal
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2318
                31 July 2024
                31 July 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 640
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Occupational Therapy, School of Health, Business and Natural Sciences, University of Akureyri, ( https://ror.org/01gnd8r41) Nordurslod 2, Akureyri, 600 Iceland
                [2 ]Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, ( https://ror.org/01db6h964) Reykjavik, Iceland
                [3 ]Health and Rehabilitation at the Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, ( https://ror.org/01tm6cn81) Gothenburg, Sweden
                [4 ]Faculty of Nursing, School of Health, Business and Natural Sciences, University of Akureyri, ( https://ror.org/01gnd8r41) Akureyri, Iceland
                [5 ]Akureyri Hospital, ( https://ror.org/0028r9r35) Akureyri, Iceland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1790-4554
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6496-3661
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4287-5409
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3017-113X
                Article
                5236
                10.1186/s12877-024-05236-2
                11292880
                39085871
                2dfcb27f-badd-41a9-9ef1-a27e5577c1ba
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

                History
                : 3 January 2024
                : 22 July 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Geriatric medicine
                access to health care,access to information,ageing,health literacy,health promotion,information seeking behaviour,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article