4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of instruments to measure health literacy of patients in emergency departments

      review-article
      , PhD 1 , 2 , , , MSc 1 , , MD, PhD 1 , 3
      Academic Emergency Medicine
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.

      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

          Objectives

          Knowledge of patient's health literacy (HL) in the emergency department (ED) can facilitate care delivery and reduce poor health outcomes. This systematic review investigates HL measurement instruments used in the ED and their psychometric properties, accuracy in detecting limited HL, and feasibility.

          Methods

          We searched in five biomedical databases for studies published between 1990 and January 2021, evaluating HL measurement instruments tested in the ED on internal consistency, criterion validity, diagnostic accuracy, or feasibility. Reviewers screened studies for relevance and assessed methodologic quality with published criteria. Data were synthesized around study and instrument characteristics and outcomes of interest.

          Results

          Of the 2,376 references screened, seven met our inclusion criteria. Studied instruments varied in objective ( n = 5) and subjective ( n = 6) measurement of HL skills, and in HL constructs measured. The Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS) and the Subjective Numeracy Scale demonstrate acceptable and good internal consistency across studies. None of the instruments perform consistently well on criterion validity. The Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine–Revised and the Newest Vital Sign, both objective tests with short administration times, demonstrate good accuracy in one study with high risk of bias. The BHLS, a short subjective measure, shows moderate accuracy across studies including one with low risk of bias.

          Conclusions

          Several short instruments seem valid in measuring HL and accurate in detecting limited HL among ED patients, each with its practical advantages and disadvantages and specific measurement of HL. Additional research is necessary to develop a robust evidence base supporting these instruments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

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

          QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

          In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

              Approximately 80 million Americans have limited health literacy, which puts them at greater risk for poorer access to care and poorer health outcomes. To update a 2004 systematic review and determine whether low health literacy is related to poorer use of health care, outcomes, costs, and disparities in health outcomes among persons of all ages. English-language articles identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Cochrane Library databases and hand-searching (search dates for articles on health literacy, 2003 to 22 February 2011; for articles on numeracy, 1966 to 22 February 2011). Two reviewers independently selected studies that compared outcomes by differences in directly measured health literacy or numeracy levels. One reviewer abstracted article information into evidence tables; a second reviewer checked information for accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated study quality by using predefined criteria, and the investigative team jointly graded the overall strength of evidence. 96 relevant good- or fair-quality studies in 111 articles were identified: 98 articles on health literacy, 22 on numeracy, and 9 on both. Low health literacy was consistently associated with more hospitalizations; greater use of emergency care; lower receipt of mammography screening and influenza vaccine; poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately; poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages; and, among elderly persons, poorer overall health status and higher mortality rates. Poor health literacy partially explains racial disparities in some outcomes. Reviewers could not reach firm conclusions about the relationship between numeracy and health outcomes because of few studies or inconsistent results among studies. Searches were limited to articles published in English. No Medical Subject Heading terms exist for identifying relevant studies. No evidence concerning oral health literacy (speaking and listening skills) and outcomes was found. Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes and poorer use of health care services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gijs.hesselink@radboudumc.nl
                Journal
                Acad Emerg Med
                Acad Emerg Med
                10.1111/(ISSN)1553-2712
                ACEM
                Academic Emergency Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1069-6563
                1553-2712
                30 December 2021
                July 2022
                : 29
                : 7 ( doiID: 10.1111/acem.v29.7 )
                : 890-901
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Emergency Medicine Radboud Institute for Health Sciences Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen the Netherlands
                [ 2 ] IQ healthcare Radboud Institute for Health Sciences Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen the Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Department of Geriatrics Radboud Institute for Health Sciences Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Gijs Hesselink, PhD, IQ healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 114 IQ healthcare, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

                Email: gijs.hesselink@ 123456radboudumc.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2532-0724
                Article
                ACEM14428
                10.1111/acem.14428
                9544178
                34919316
                7b479de4-5fb2-4aff-ae3a-85ff9c2408d8
                © 2021 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 22 October 2021
                : 09 June 2021
                : 14 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 12, Words: 8410
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Systematic Reviews (With or without Meta‐analyses)
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                July 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article