CONTEXT: Pneumococcal immunization rates for elderly and high-risk patients are only one third to one half the target rate of 60% established by the US Public Health Service. Limited or marginal literacy, which affects nearly 100 million Americans, especially the elderly, may contribute to these low rates of immunization. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a simple, low-literacy educational tool enhances patient-physician dialogue about pneumococcal vaccination and increases rates of immunization. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial conducted between May and June of 1998. SETTING:Ambulatory care clinic of a 900-bed public teaching hospital serving a predominantly indigent, low-literate, African American, inner-city population. PARTICIPANTS: Of 433 patients who presented for routine primary care, had vaccine indications (age > or =65 years or chronic disease), and had not been previously vaccinated, 221 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 212 to the control group. Of the total patient population (mean age, 63 years), 280 (64.7%) had less than a high school education, 401 (92.6%) were African American, and 300 (69.3%) were female. INTERVENTION: One-page, low-literacy (below fifth-grade level) educational handout encouraging patients to "ask your doctor about the pneumonia shot" vs a control group (1 -page, low-literacy educational handout conveying information about nutrition). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccination rates (documented by chart audit) of patients who received pneumococcal vaccination and rates of patients who self-reported having discussed vaccination with their physicians. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention group were 4 times more likely to have discussed the pneumococcal vaccine with their physicians than patients in the control group (87/221 [39.4%] vs 21/212 [9.9%]; relative risk [RR], 3.97 [95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-5.83]), and were more than 5 times as likely to have received the pneumococcal vaccine than the control group (44/221 [19.9%] vs 8/212 [3.8%]; RR, 5.28 [95% CI, 2.80-9.93]). In a multivariate analysis controlling for race, sex, education, insurance status, age, level of physician training, health status, and vaccine indication, only assignment to the intervention group was statistically significantly related to the probability of being immunized or discussing the issue with their physicians (P<.001 for both trends). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, low-literacy educational tool increased pneumococcal vaccination rates and patient-physician discussions about the vaccine in an elderly, low-literate, indigent, minority population.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Pneumococcal immunization rates for elderly and high-risk patients are only one third to one half the target rate of 60% established by the US Public Health Service. Limited or marginal literacy, which affects nearly 100 million Americans, especially the elderly, may contribute to these low rates of immunization. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a simple, low-literacy educational tool enhances patient-physician dialogue about pneumococcal vaccination and increases rates of immunization. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial conducted between May and June of 1998. SETTING: Ambulatory care clinic of a 900-bed public teaching hospital serving a predominantly indigent, low-literate, African American, inner-city population. PARTICIPANTS: Of 433 patients who presented for routine primary care, had vaccine indications (age > or =65 years or chronic disease), and had not been previously vaccinated, 221 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 212 to the control group. Of the total patient population (mean age, 63 years), 280 (64.7%) had less than a high school education, 401 (92.6%) were African American, and 300 (69.3%) were female. INTERVENTION: One-page, low-literacy (below fifth-grade level) educational handout encouraging patients to "ask your doctor about the pneumonia shot" vs a control group (1 -page, low-literacy educational handout conveying information about nutrition). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccination rates (documented by chart audit) of patients who received pneumococcal vaccination and rates of patients who self-reported having discussed vaccination with their physicians. RESULTS:Patients in the intervention group were 4 times more likely to have discussed the pneumococcal vaccine with their physicians than patients in the control group (87/221 [39.4%] vs 21/212 [9.9%]; relative risk [RR], 3.97 [95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-5.83]), and were more than 5 times as likely to have received the pneumococcal vaccine than the control group (44/221 [19.9%] vs 8/212 [3.8%]; RR, 5.28 [95% CI, 2.80-9.93]). In a multivariate analysis controlling for race, sex, education, insurance status, age, level of physician training, health status, and vaccine indication, only assignment to the intervention group was statistically significantly related to the probability of being immunized or discussing the issue with their physicians (P<.001 for both trends). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, low-literacy educational tool increased pneumococcal vaccination rates and patient-physician discussions about the vaccine in an elderly, low-literate, indigent, minority population.
Authors: Joseph R Betancourt; Alexander R Green; J Emilio Carrillo; Owusu Ananeh-Firempong Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: David W Baker; Julie A Gazmararian; Mark V Williams; Tracy Scott; Ruth M Parker; Diane Green; Junling Ren; Jennifer Peel Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Jyoti Sharma; Elizabeth Justice; Jeb Justice; Cynthia Spiker; Larry E Laufman; Megan Price; Armin D Weinberg; Terry A Jacobson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Nicholas A Daniels; Susan Gouveia; Daniel Null; Ginny L Gildengorin; Carla A Winston Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sue Stableford; Angela Fagerlin; John T Wei; Rodney L Dunn; Janet Ohene-Frempong; Karen Kelly-Blake; David R Rovner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 2.796