OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to describe the relationship between health literacy, ethnicity, and cervical cancer screening practices and to evaluate physician recognition of low literacy. STUDY DESIGN: We studied a prospective cohort of English-speaking patients > or =18 years (n = 529) in ambulatory women's clinics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate demographics, health practices and beliefs, and knowledge regarding cervical cancer screening and prevention. Physicians' assessments of patient reading skills were obtained. RESULTS: Low health literacy (<9th grade) was found among 40% of participants. Minority women were half as likely to know the purpose of the Papanicolaou test (9% vs 21%; P <.03) and were significantly more likely to have low literacy levels compared with white women (46% vs 15%; P <.05). Literacy was the only factor independently associated with knowledge related to cervical cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.80). Physicians detected only 20% of the lowest readers. CONCLUSION: Poor health literacy was a better predictor of cervical cancer screening knowledge than ethnicity or education, yet physicians infrequently recognized low literacy. Improved physician awareness and development of low literacy interventions may improve cervical cancer screening, particularly for the most vulnerable women.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to describe the relationship between health literacy, ethnicity, and cervical cancer screening practices and to evaluate physician recognition of low literacy. STUDY DESIGN: We studied a prospective cohort of English-speaking patients > or =18 years (n = 529) in ambulatory women's clinics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate demographics, health practices and beliefs, and knowledge regarding cervical cancer screening and prevention. Physicians' assessments of patient reading skills were obtained. RESULTS: Low health literacy (<9th grade) was found among 40% of participants. Minority women were half as likely to know the purpose of the Papanicolaou test (9% vs 21%; P <.03) and were significantly more likely to have low literacy levels compared with white women (46% vs 15%; P <.05). Literacy was the only factor independently associated with knowledge related to cervical cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.80). Physicians detected only 20% of the lowest readers. CONCLUSION: Poor health literacy was a better predictor of cervical cancer screening knowledge than ethnicity or education, yet physicians infrequently recognized low literacy. Improved physician awareness and development of low literacy interventions may improve cervical cancer screening, particularly for the most vulnerable women.
Authors: Susan Robinson; Debra Moser; Michele M Pelter; Thomas Nesbitt; Steven M Paul; Kathleen Dracup Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Joan Neuner; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Elisabeth Hayes; Purushottam Laud Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Shoou-Yih Daniel Lee; Brian D Stucky; Jessica Y Lee; R Gary Rozier; Deborah E Bender Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Darren A Dewalt; Nancy D Berkman; Stacey Sheridan; Kathleen N Lohr; Michael P Pignone Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Neeraja B Peterson; Kathleen A Dwyer; Shelagh A Mulvaney; Mary S Dietrich; Russell L Rothman Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.798