26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance of a brief survey to assess health literacy in patients receiving hemodialysis

      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

          Health literacy is associated with important outcomes among patients with kidney disease, but widely used measures of health literacy can be burdensome. In an effort to make a practical assessment available, we compared the performance of the three-item brief health literacy screen (BHLS) to other widely used measures of health literacy among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

          Methods

          Adult hemodialysis patients ( n = 150) from four urban dialysis facilities participated in a cross-sectional study from 2009 to 2012. Three health literacy measures were administered including (i) the rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine (REALM), (ii) the short test of functional health literacy in adults (S-TOFHLA) and (iii) the three-item BHLS. The mini-mental state exam assessed cognitive status, and the chronic hemodialysis knowledge survey (CHeKS) and perceived kidney disease knowledge survey (PiKS) assessed kidney knowledge. Spearman's ρs and area under the receiver-operating curves examined relationships between the aforementioned variables.

          Results

          Participants had received dialysis for a mean of 4.6 years. They were 49% female, 73% African American and averaged 52 years of age. Less education and less cognitive capacity were each associated (P < 0.05) with lower health literacy for all three health literacy measures. Performance on the BHLS was significantly associated with the REALM [0.35 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.20–0.49); P < 0.001] and S-TOFHLA [0.49 (95% CI: 0.35–0.69); P < 0.001], the CHeKS [0.43 (95% CI: 0.28–0.55); P < 0.001] and PiKS [0.41 (95% CI: 0.27–0.54); P < 0.001].

          Conclusions

          The BHLS demonstrates evidence of construct validity among ESRD patients. Furthermore, health literacy was associated with kidney knowledge, supporting it as a potential intervention target to improve outcomes among patients with lower health literacy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

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

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy.

            We describe the development of an abbreviated version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) to measure patients' ability to read and understand health-related materials. The TOFHLA was reduced from 17 Numeracy items and 3 prose passages to 4 Numeracy items and 2 prose passages (S-TOFHLA). The maximum time for administration was reduced from 22 minutes to 12. In a group of 211 patients given the S-TOFHLA, Cronbach's alpha was 0.68 for the 4 Numeracy items and 0.97 for the 36 items in the 2 prose passages. The correlation (Spearman) between the S-TOFHLA and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) was 0.80, although there were important disagreements between the two tests. The S-TOFHLA is a practical measure of functional health literacy with good reliability and validity that can be used by health educators to identify individuals who require special assistance to achieve learning goals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients.

              Health education materials, medical instructions, consent forms, and self-report questionnaires are often given to patients with little regard for their ability to read them. Reading ability is rarely tested in medical settings. The Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) was developed as a quick screening tool to assist physicians in identifying patients with limited reading skills and in estimating patient reading levels. This information can be used to tailor materials and instructions to patients' abilities. The REALM and the reading sections of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised and the Slosson Oral Reading Test were used to test reading ability in 207 adults in six public and private primary care clinics. REALM scores correlated highly with those of the standardized reading tests. The REALM, which takes three to five minutes to administer and score, appears to be a practical instrument to estimate patient literacy in primary care, patient education, and medical research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Kidney J
                Clin Kidney J
                ckj
                ndtplus
                Clinical Kidney Journal
                Oxford University Press
                2048-8505
                2048-8513
                August 2015
                10 June 2015
                10 June 2015
                : 8
                : 4
                : 462-468
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN, USA
                [2 ]Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease , Nashville, TN, USA
                [3 ]Department of Medicine & Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN, USA
                [4 ]Arbor Research , Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [5 ]Department of Medicine & Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN, USA
                [6 ]Vanderbilt University School of Nursing , Nashville, TN, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Kerri L. Cavanaugh; E-mail: kerri.cavanaugh@ 123456vanderbilt.edu
                Article
                sfv037
                10.1093/ckj/sfv037
                4515892
                26251719
                059db7a9-9bc5-48bd-960e-4feedca0a5e8
                © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 5 September 2014
                : 28 April 2015
                Categories
                Contents
                Patient Education

                Nephrology
                dialysis,health literacy,knowledge,patient education,validation
                Nephrology
                dialysis, health literacy, knowledge, patient education, validation

                Comments

                Comment on this article