卫生素养干预措施和结果:最新的系统评价。

Nancy D Berkman, Stacey L Sheridan, Katrina E Donahue, David J Halpern, Anthony Viera, Karen Crotty, Audrey Holland, Michelle Brasure, Kathleen N Lohr, Elizabeth Harden, Elizabeth Tant, Ina Wallace, Meera Viswanathan
{"title":"卫生素养干预措施和结果:最新的系统评价。","authors":"Nancy D Berkman,&nbsp;Stacey L Sheridan,&nbsp;Katrina E Donahue,&nbsp;David J Halpern,&nbsp;Anthony Viera,&nbsp;Karen Crotty,&nbsp;Audrey Holland,&nbsp;Michelle Brasure,&nbsp;Kathleen N Lohr,&nbsp;Elizabeth Harden,&nbsp;Elizabeth Tant,&nbsp;Ina Wallace,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 199","pages":"1-941"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781058/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Nancy D Berkman,&nbsp;Stacey L Sheridan,&nbsp;Katrina E Donahue,&nbsp;David J Halpern,&nbsp;Anthony Viera,&nbsp;Karen Crotty,&nbsp;Audrey Holland,&nbsp;Michelle Brasure,&nbsp;Kathleen N Lohr,&nbsp;Elizabeth Harden,&nbsp;Elizabeth Tant,&nbsp;Ina Wallace,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 199\",\"pages\":\"1-941\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781058/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:更新2004年关于卫生保健服务使用和健康结果与卫生素养水平差异相关的系统综述,以及旨在改善低卫生素养个体这些结果的干预措施。还审查了不同社会人口群体之间健康结果和干预措施有效性的差异。数据来源:我们检索了MEDLINE®、护理和相关健康文献累积索引、Cochrane图书馆、PsychINFO和教育资源信息中心。对于健康素养,我们使用多种术语进行检索,仅限于英语和2003年至2010年5月25日发表的研究。为了计算准确性,我们从1966年到2010年5月25日进行了搜索。回顾方法:我们采用标准的循证实践中心方法,对摘要、全文文章、摘要、质量评分和证据强度进行双重回顾。我们以一致意见解决分歧。我们评估了是否有较新的文献可用于回答关键问题,因此我们扩大了健康素养的定义,包括计算能力和口头(口语)健康素养。我们排除了没有直接测量健康素养的干预研究,并更新了评估个体研究偏倚风险和证据强度等级的方法。结果:我们纳入了高质量和中等质量的研究:81项研究涉及健康结果(在95篇文章中报道,其中86项测量健康素养,16项测量计算能力,其中7项测量两者),42项研究(在45篇文章中报道)涉及干预措施。健康素养水平的差异始终与住院率增加、急诊使用率增加、乳房x光检查使用率降低、流感疫苗接种率降低、证明适当服用药物的能力较差、解读标签和健康信息的能力较差以及老年人总体健康状况较差和死亡率较高相关。健康素养水平可能是黑人和白人之间差异的中介。计算能力研究的证据强度不足至低,限制了关于计算能力对医疗服务使用或健康结果影响的结论。两项研究表明,计算能力可能会调节差异对健康结果的影响。我们没有发现有关口腔健康素养和结果的证据。在干预研究(27项随机对照试验[rct]、2项聚类rct和13项准实验设计)中,特定设计特征的证据强度较低或不足。然而,在一项或几项研究中,一些特定的特征似乎可以提高理解能力。混合干预措施对卫生保健服务使用影响的证据强度为中等;集约化自我管理发明对行为的影响以及疾病管理干预措施对疾病流行/严重程度的影响。其他混合干预措施对其他健康结果(包括知识、自我效能、依从性和生活质量)和成本的影响是混合的;因此,证据的力度不足。结论:自2004年报告以来,卫生知识普及领域取得了进展。未来的研究重点包括在开展研究之前确定适当的卫生知识普及水平临界值;开发衡量其他相关技能的工具,特别是口头(口语)卫生素养;并检查健康素养影响的中介和调节因子。推进干预措施设计特点的优先事项包括测试提高动机的新方法,口头或数字传递信息的技术,“绕过”干预措施,如患者倡导者;确定已测试干预措施的有效组成部分;确定项目的成本效益;并确定政策和实践干预的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Data Linkage Strategies to Advance Youth Suicide Prevention. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Systematic Review. Health Information Exchange. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1