Daniel Bremer1, Izumi Klockmann2, Leonie Jaß3, Martin Härter1, Olaf von dem Knesebeck3, Daniel Lüdecke3. 1. Department of Medical Psychology, Center for Health Care Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Sociology, Center for Health Care Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. i.klockmann@uke.de. 3. Department of Medical Sociology, Center for Health Care Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organizational health literacy (OHL) aims to respond to the health literacy needs of patients by improving health information and services and making them easier to understand, access, and apply. This scoping review primarily maps criteria characterizing health literate health care organizations. Secondary outcomes are the concepts and terminologies underlying these criteria as well as instruments to measure them. METHODS: The review was carried out following the JBI Manual on scoping reviews. The databases CINAHL, Cochrane Library, JSTOR, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and Wiley Online Library were searched in July 2020. Three researchers screened the records and extracted the data. The results were synthesized systematically and descriptively. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 639 records. After removing duplicates, screening by title and abstract, and assessing full-texts for eligibility, the scoping review included 60 publications. Criteria for OHL were extracted and assigned to six main categories (with 25 subcategories). The most prevalent topic of organizational health literacy refers to communication with service users. Exemplary criteria regarding this main category are the education and information of service users, work on easy-to-understand written materials as well as oral exchange, and verifying understanding. The six main categories were defined as 1) communication with service users; 2) easy access & navigation; 3) integration & prioritization of OHL; 4) assessments & organizational development; 5) engagement & support of service users, and 6) information & qualification of staff. The criteria were based on various concepts and terminologies. Terminologies were categorized into four conceptual clusters: 1) health literacy in various social contexts; 2) health literate health care organization; 3) organizational behavior, and 4) communication in health care. 17 different assessment tools and instruments were identified. Only some of the toolkits and instruments were validated or tested in feasibility studies. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational health literacy includes a significant number of distinct organizational criteria. The terminologies used in the OHL literature are heterogeneous based on a variety of concepts. A comprehensive, consensus-based conceptual framework on OHL is missing.
BACKGROUND: Organizational health literacy (OHL) aims to respond to the health literacy needs of patients by improving health information and services and making them easier to understand, access, and apply. This scoping review primarily maps criteria characterizing health literate health care organizations. Secondary outcomes are the concepts and terminologies underlying these criteria as well as instruments to measure them. METHODS: The review was carried out following the JBI Manual on scoping reviews. The databases CINAHL, Cochrane Library, JSTOR, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and Wiley Online Library were searched in July 2020. Three researchers screened the records and extracted the data. The results were synthesized systematically and descriptively. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 639 records. After removing duplicates, screening by title and abstract, and assessing full-texts for eligibility, the scoping review included 60 publications. Criteria for OHL were extracted and assigned to six main categories (with 25 subcategories). The most prevalent topic of organizational health literacy refers to communication with service users. Exemplary criteria regarding this main category are the education and information of service users, work on easy-to-understand written materials as well as oral exchange, and verifying understanding. The six main categories were defined as 1) communication with service users; 2) easy access & navigation; 3) integration & prioritization of OHL; 4) assessments & organizational development; 5) engagement & support of service users, and 6) information & qualification of staff. The criteria were based on various concepts and terminologies. Terminologies were categorized into four conceptual clusters: 1) health literacy in various social contexts; 2) health literate health care organization; 3) organizational behavior, and 4) communication in health care. 17 different assessment tools and instruments were identified. Only some of the toolkits and instruments were validated or tested in feasibility studies. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational health literacy includes a significant number of distinct organizational criteria. The terminologies used in the OHL literature are heterogeneous based on a variety of concepts. A comprehensive, consensus-based conceptual framework on OHL is missing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health care organizations; Health literacy; Health literacy responsiveness; Organizational development; Organizational health literacy; Patient-centered communication; Scoping review
Authors: Kristine Sørensen; Stephan Van den Broucke; James Fullam; Gerardine Doyle; Jürgen Pelikan; Zofia Slonska; Helmut Brand Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Christoph Kowalski; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Anna Schmidt; Simone Wesselmann; Markus A Wirtz; Holger Pfaff; Nicole Ernstmann Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-02-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Kati Hiltrop; Nina Hiebel; Franziska Geiser; Milena Kriegsmann-Rabe; Nikoloz Gambashidze; Eva Morawa; Yesim Erim; Kerstin Weidner; Christian Albus; Nicole Ernstmann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 3.390