Njabulo Mbanda1, Shakila Dada2, Kirsty Bastable1, Gimbler-Berglund Ingalill3, Schlosser Ralf W4. 1. Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, South Africa. 2. Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Electronic address: shakila.dada@up.ac.za. 3. CHILD Research Group, School of Health and Welfare, Jönkoping University, Sweden. 4. Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northeastern University, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review on the literature on visual aids in health education for persons with low-literacy. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was employed. Pre-defined selection criteria identified 47 studies for inclusion. Data were extracted in relation to: (a) definitions of low-literacy and health literacy, (b) population studied, (c) research country, (d) consent procedures, (e) visual aids used, (f) development of visual aids, and (g) targeted outcomes. RESULTS: Visual aids developed with persons with low-literacy demonstrated statistically significant improvements in health literacy outcomes, with benefits in medication adherence and comprehension also reported. Pictograms and videos were the most effective visual aids. Only one study adapted consent procedures for low-literacy participants. DISCUSSION: Visual aids in health education materials may benefit persons with low-literacy levels, but large gaps in the research base are evident. Experimental research in low- and middle-income countries, with a particular focus on consent for participants with low-literacy is needed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Visual aid design needs to include stakeholders. Consent procedures and decision-making need to be specifically adapted for participants with low-literacy.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review on the literature on visual aids in health education for persons with low-literacy. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was employed. Pre-defined selection criteria identified 47 studies for inclusion. Data were extracted in relation to: (a) definitions of low-literacy and health literacy, (b) population studied, (c) research country, (d) consent procedures, (e) visual aids used, (f) development of visual aids, and (g) targeted outcomes. RESULTS: Visual aids developed with persons with low-literacy demonstrated statistically significant improvements in health literacy outcomes, with benefits in medication adherence and comprehension also reported. Pictograms and videos were the most effective visual aids. Only one study adapted consent procedures for low-literacy participants. DISCUSSION: Visual aids in health education materials may benefit persons with low-literacy levels, but large gaps in the research base are evident. Experimental research in low- and middle-income countries, with a particular focus on consent for participants with low-literacy is needed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Visual aid design needs to include stakeholders. Consent procedures and decision-making need to be specifically adapted for participants with low-literacy.
Authors: Florine W M Schlatmann; Michael R van Balken; Andrea F de Winter; Igle-Jan de Jong; Carel J M Jansen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 4.614