Benjamin J Powers1, Jane V Trinh, Hayden B Bosworth. 1. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 508 Fulton St, Durham, NC 27705, USA. power017@mc.duke.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patients with limited literacy are at higher risk for poor health outcomes; however, physicians' perceptions are inaccurate for identifying these patients. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the accuracy of brief instruments for identifying patients with limited literacy. DATA SOURCES: Search of the English-language literature from 1969 through February 2010 using PubMed, Psychinfo, and bibliographies of selected manuscripts for articles on health literacy, numeracy, reading ability, and reading skill. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies including adult patients 18 years or older that evaluated a brief instrument for identifying limited literacy in a health care setting compared with an accepted literacy reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were evaluated independently by 2 reviewers who each abstracted information and assigned an overall quality rating. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies using 6 different instruments met inclusion criteria. Among multi-item measures, the Newest Vital Sign (English) performed moderately well for identifying limited literacy based on 3 studies. Among the single-item questions, asking about a patient's use of a surrogate reader, confidence filling out medical forms, and self-rated reading ability performed moderately well in identifying patients with inadequate or marginal literacy. Asking a patient, "How confident are you in filling out medical forms by yourself?" is associated with a summary likelihood ratio (LR) for limited literacy of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-6.4) for an answer of "a little confident" or "not at all confident"; a summary LR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.3) for "somewhat confident"; and a summary LR of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.24-0.82) for "quite a bit" or "extremely confident." CONCLUSION: Several single-item questions, including use of a surrogate reader and confidence with medical forms, were moderately effective for quickly identifying patients with limited literacy.
CONTEXT: Patients with limited literacy are at higher risk for poor health outcomes; however, physicians' perceptions are inaccurate for identifying these patients. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the accuracy of brief instruments for identifying patients with limited literacy. DATA SOURCES: Search of the English-language literature from 1969 through February 2010 using PubMed, Psychinfo, and bibliographies of selected manuscripts for articles on health literacy, numeracy, reading ability, and reading skill. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies including adult patients 18 years or older that evaluated a brief instrument for identifying limited literacy in a health care setting compared with an accepted literacy reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were evaluated independently by 2 reviewers who each abstracted information and assigned an overall quality rating. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies using 6 different instruments met inclusion criteria. Among multi-item measures, the Newest Vital Sign (English) performed moderately well for identifying limited literacy based on 3 studies. Among the single-item questions, asking about a patient's use of a surrogate reader, confidence filling out medical forms, and self-rated reading ability performed moderately well in identifying patients with inadequate or marginal literacy. Asking a patient, "How confident are you in filling out medical forms by yourself?" is associated with a summary likelihood ratio (LR) for limited literacy of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-6.4) for an answer of "a little confident" or "not at all confident"; a summary LR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.3) for "somewhat confident"; and a summary LR of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.24-0.82) for "quite a bit" or "extremely confident." CONCLUSION: Several single-item questions, including use of a surrogate reader and confidence with medical forms, were moderately effective for quickly identifying patients with limited literacy.
Authors: Ashli A Owen-Smith; David H Smith; Cynthia S Rand; Jeffrey O Tom; Reesa Laws; Amy Waterbury; Andrew Williams; William M Vollmer Journal: Perm J Date: 2016-06-29
Authors: Hayden B Bosworth; Bradi B Granger; Phil Mendys; Ralph Brindis; Rebecca Burkholder; Susan M Czajkowski; Jodi G Daniel; Inger Ekman; Michael Ho; Mimi Johnson; Stephen E Kimmel; Larry Z Liu; John Musaus; William H Shrank; Elizabeth Whalley Buono; Karen Weiss; Christopher B Granger Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Andrea K Morrison; Marilyn M Schapira; Marc H Gorelick; Raymond G Hoffmann; David C Brousseau Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Robin Mathews; Eric D Peterson; Emily Honeycutt; Chee Tang Chin; Mark B Effron; Marjorie Zettler; Gregg C Fonarow; Timothy D Henry; Tracy Y Wang Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-06-02
Authors: Candace D McNaughton; Sunil Kripalani; Courtney Cawthon; Lorraine C Mion; Kenneth A Wallston; Christianne L Roumie Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.983