Debra L Roter1, Lori Erby, Susan Larson, Lee Ellington. 1. Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Suite 750, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. droter@jhsph.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the oral literacy demand of genetic counseling sessions and the ability of low literate subjects to learn genetics-related information. METHODS: Ninety-six simulated genetic counseling sessions were videotaped and shown to 312 subjects recruited to imagine themselves as the session's client. Study measures included oral literacy demand, operationalized as: (1) use of key genetics terms; (2) informational context; (3) general language complexity; and (4) structural characteristics of dialogue interactivity. The study outcome was learning of genetics-related information. RESULTS: Subjects with restricted literacy (below 8th grade level) learned more when viewing sessions with greater dialogue interactivity and more personally contextualized information. Subjects with adequate literacy skills, however, tended to learn less in low literacy demand sessions. CONCLUSION: The oral literacy demand of medical dialogue represents a learning obstacle to low literate subjects. However, this may not be the case for those with greater literacy skills who can understand the complex language and process the dense informational load of high demand sessions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In order to meet the educational needs of all patients, clinicians must attend to both the informativeness and the oral literacy demand of their communication.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the oral literacy demand of genetic counseling sessions and the ability of low literate subjects to learn genetics-related information. METHODS: Ninety-six simulated genetic counseling sessions were videotaped and shown to 312 subjects recruited to imagine themselves as the session's client. Study measures included oral literacy demand, operationalized as: (1) use of key genetics terms; (2) informational context; (3) general language complexity; and (4) structural characteristics of dialogue interactivity. The study outcome was learning of genetics-related information. RESULTS: Subjects with restricted literacy (below 8th grade level) learned more when viewing sessions with greater dialogue interactivity and more personally contextualized information. Subjects with adequate literacy skills, however, tended to learn less in low literacy demand sessions. CONCLUSION: The oral literacy demand of medical dialogue represents a learning obstacle to low literate subjects. However, this may not be the case for those with greater literacy skills who can understand the complex language and process the dense informational load of high demand sessions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In order to meet the educational needs of all patients, clinicians must attend to both the informativeness and the oral literacy demand of their communication.
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
Authors: Sean P David; Elaine C Johnstone; Michael Churchman; Paul Aveyard; Michael F G Murphy; Marcus R Munafò Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 4.244
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
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
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