Danielle Schubbe1, Peter Scalia1, Renata W Yen1, Catherine H Saunders1, Sarah Cohen2, Glyn Elwyn1, Maria van den Muijsenbergh3, Marie-Anne Durand4. 1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, 1 Medical Center Drive (WTRB, Level 5), Lebanon, NH 03756, USA. 2. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. 3. Radboudumc University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Pharos, Center of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, 1 Medical Center Drive (WTRB, Level 5), Lebanon, NH 03756, USA. Electronic address: marie-anne.durand@dartmouth.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients' and consumers' health behaviors and outcomes, evaluate these effects in lower health literacy populations, and examine the attributes of the interventions. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs that assessed knowledge/understanding, recall, or adherence, and a subgroup analysis of those outcomes on lower health literacy populations. We narratively reviewed characteristics of pictorial health interventions that significantly improved outcomes for lower health literacy populations. RESULTS: From 4160 records, we included 54 RCTs (42 in meta-analysis). Pictorial health information moderately improved knowledge/understanding and recall overall, but largely increased knowledge/understanding for lower health literacy populations (n = 13), all with substantial heterogeneity. Icons with few words may be most helpful in conveying health information. CONCLUSION: Our results support including pictures in health communication to improve patient knowledge. Our results should be interpreted with caution considering the significant heterogeneity of the meta-analysis outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future research should assess which types and characteristics of pictures that best convey health information and are most useful and the implementation and sustainability in healthcare contexts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084743.
OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of pictorial health information on patients' and consumers' health behaviors and outcomes, evaluate these effects in lower health literacy populations, and examine the attributes of the interventions. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of pictorial health information on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs that assessed knowledge/understanding, recall, or adherence, and a subgroup analysis of those outcomes on lower health literacy populations. We narratively reviewed characteristics of pictorial health interventions that significantly improved outcomes for lower health literacy populations. RESULTS: From 4160 records, we included 54 RCTs (42 in meta-analysis). Pictorial health information moderately improved knowledge/understanding and recall overall, but largely increased knowledge/understanding for lower health literacy populations (n = 13), all with substantial heterogeneity. Icons with few words may be most helpful in conveying health information. CONCLUSION: Our results support including pictures in health communication to improve patient knowledge. Our results should be interpreted with caution considering the significant heterogeneity of the meta-analysis outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future research should assess which types and characteristics of pictures that best convey health information and are most useful and the implementation and sustainability in healthcare contexts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084743.
Keywords:
Health behaviors; Health communication; Health information; Health literacy; Health outcomes; Meta-analysis; Pictorial superiority; Pictures; Systematic review
Authors: Kimberley A Baxter; Smita Nambiar; Tsz Hei Jeffrey So; Danielle Gallegos; Rebecca Byrne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Shannon M Christy; Lakeshia A Cousin; Steven K Sutton; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Rania Abdulla; Liliana Gutierrez; Julian Sanchez; Diana Lopez; Clement K Gwede; Cathy D Meade Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2021 Set/Oct 01 Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Amit Arora; Roneel Maharaj; Seemagni Naidu; Ritesh Chimoriya; Sameer Bhole; Simone Nash; Charlotte Jones Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2021-01-07
Authors: Marie-Anne Durand; Renata W Yen; A James O'Malley; Danielle Schubbe; Mary C Politi; Catherine H Saunders; Shubhada Dhage; Kari Rosenkranz; Julie Margenthaler; Anna N A Tosteson; Eloise Crayton; Sherrill Jackson; Ann Bradley; Linda Walling; Christine M Marx; Robert J Volk; Karen Sepucha; Elissa Ozanne; Sanja Percac-Lima; Emily Bergin; Courtney Goodwin; Caity Miller; Camille Harris; Richard J Barth; Rebecca Aft; Sheldon Feldman; Amy E Cyr; Christina V Angeles; Shuai Jiang; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ester A Rake; Dunja Dreesens; Kristie Venhorst; Marjan J Meinders; Tessa Geltink; Jenny T Wolswinkel; Michelle Dannenberg; Jan A M Kremer; Glyn Elwyn; Johanna W M Aarts Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hanne C Lie; Lene K Juvet; Richard L Street; Pål Gulbrandsen; Anneli V Mellblom; Espen Andreas Brembo; Hilde Eide; Lena Heyn; Kristina H Saltveit; Hilde Strømme; Vibeke Sundling; Eva Turk; Julia Menichetti Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 5.128