Literature DB >> 17614177

Assessing oral literacy demand in genetic counseling dialogue: preliminary test of a conceptual framework.

Debra L Roter1, Lori H Erby, Susan Larson, Lee Ellington.   

Abstract

Health literacy deficits affect half the American patient population and are linked to poor health, ineffective disease management and high rates of hospitalization. Restricted literacy has also been linked with less satisfying medical visits and communication difficulties, particularly in terms of the interpersonal and informational aspects of care. Despite growing attention to these issues by researchers and policy makers, few studies have attempted to conceptualize and assess those aspects of dialogue that challenge persons with low literacy skills, i.e., the oral literacy demand within medical encounters. The current study uses videotapes and transcripts of 152 prenatal and cancer pretest genetic counseling sessions recorded with simulated clients to develop a conceptual framework to explore oral literacy demand and its consequences for medical interaction and related outcomes. Ninety-six prenatal and 81 cancer genetic counselors-broadly representative of the US National Society of Genetic Counselors-participated in the study. Key elements of the conceptual framework used to define oral literacy demand include: (1) use of unfamiliar technical terms; (2) general language complexity, reflected in the application of Microsoft Word grammar summary statistics to session transcripts; and, (3) structural characteristics of dialogue, including pacing, density, and interactivity. Genetic counselor outcomes include self-ratings of session satisfaction, informativeness, and development of rapport. The simulated clients rated their satisfaction with session communication, the counselor's effective use of nonverbal skills, and the counselor's affective demeanor during the session. Sessions with greater overall technical term use were longer and used more complex language reflected in readability indices and multi-syllabic vocabulary (measures averaging p<.05). Sessions with a high proportionate use of technical terms were characterized by shorter visits, high readability demand, slow speech speed, fewer and more dense counselor speaking turns and low interactivity (p<.05). The higher the use of technical terms, and the more dense and less interactive the dialogue, the less satisfied the simulated clients were and the lower their ratings were of counselors' nonverbal effectiveness and affective demeanor (all relationships p<.05). Counselors' self-ratings of informativeness were also inversely related to use of technical terms (p<.05). Just as print material can be made more reader-friendly and effective following established guidelines, the medical dialogue may also be made more patient-centered and meaningful by having providers monitor their vocabulary and language, as well as the structural characteristics of interaction, thereby lowering the literacy demand of routine medical dialogue. These consequences are important for all patients but may be even more so for patients with restricted literacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17614177      PMCID: PMC2084361          DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  45 in total

1.  Who is really ignorant--physician or patient?

Authors:  J B McKinlay
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1975-03

2.  Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees' cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences.

Authors:  Arwen H Pieterse; Margreet G E M Ausems; Alexandra M Van Dulmen; Frits A Beemer; Jozien M Bensing
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 3.  Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: VI. A critical review of the literature dealing with education and reproduction.

Authors:  S Kessler
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1989-11

4.  Gaps in doctor-patient communication. 1. Doctor-patient interaction and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  B M Korsch; E K Gozzi; V Francis
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1968-11       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?

Authors:  Matthijs van den Berg; Danielle R M Timmermans; Leo P Ten Kate; John M G van Vugt; Gerrit van der Wal
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Older listeners' ability to comprehend speaker-generated rate alteration of passages.

Authors:  J F Schmitt; M R Carroll
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-06

7.  Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  C Lerman; M Daly; A Masny; A Balshem
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument.

Authors:  T C Davis; S W Long; R H Jackson; E J Mayeaux; R B George; P W Murphy; M A Crouch
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 1.756

9.  Relations between physicians' behaviors and analogue patients' satisfaction, recall, and impressions.

Authors:  D L Roter; J A Hall; N R Katz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Physician satisfaction with primary care office visits. Collaborative Study Group of the American Academy on Physician and Patient.

Authors:  A L Suchman; D Roter; M Green; M Lipkin
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  36 in total

1.  Media messages about cancer: what do people understand?

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Josephine Calvi; Rebecca Cowan; Mary E Costanza; Paul K J Han; Sarah M Greene; Laura Saccoccio; Erica Cove; Douglas Roblin; Andrew Williams
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010

2.  Cancer patients' fears related to clinical trial participation: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Gwendolyn P Quinn; Alexis Koskan; Kristen J Wells; Luis E Gonzalez; Cathy D Meade; Christie L Pratt Pozo; Paul B Jacobsen
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Empowering Women's Prenatal Communication: Does Literacy Matter?

Authors:  Debra L Roter; Lori H Erby; Rajiv N Rimal; Katherine C Smith; Susan Larson; Ian M Bennett; Katie Washington Cole; Yue Guan; Matthew Molloy; Jessica Bienstock
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2015

4.  To worry or not to worry: breast cancer genetic counseling communication with low-income Latina immigrants.

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Claudia Guerra
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-08-23

5.  Health literacy and cancer prevention: two new instruments to assess comprehension.

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Douglas W Roblin; Andrew E Williams; Sarah M Greene; Bridget Gaglio; Terry S Field; Mary E Costanza; Paul K J Han; Laura Saccoccio; Josephine Calvi; Erica Cove; Rebecca Cowan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-01-13

6.  "I Don't Want to Be an Ostrich": Managing Mothers' Uncertainty during BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Carla L Fisher; Thomas Roccotagliata; Camella J Rising; David W Kissane; Emily A Glogowski; Carma L Bylund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Effective communication in the era of precision medicine: A pilot intervention with low health literacy patients to improve genetic counseling communication.

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Robin Lee; Rena J Pasick; Claudia Guerra; Dean Schillinger; Sara Rubin
Journal:  Eur J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 2.708

8.  Exploring oral literacy in communication with hospice caregivers.

Authors:  Elaine Wittenberg-Lyles; Joy Goldsmith; Debra Parker Oliver; George Demiris; Robin L Kruse; Stephanie Van Stee
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 3.612

9.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  A conceptual model of verbal exchange health literacy.

Authors:  Kathleen F Harrington; Melissa A Valerio
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-11-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.