Health literacy interventions for informal caregivers: systematic review.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eva Yuen, Carlene Wilson, Joanne Adams, Tejashree Kangutkar, Patricia M Livingston, Victoria M White, Cherene Ockerby, Alison Hutchinson
{"title":"Health literacy interventions for informal caregivers: systematic review.","authors":"Eva Yuen, Carlene Wilson, Joanne Adams, Tejashree Kangutkar, Patricia M Livingston, Victoria M White, Cherene Ockerby, Alison Hutchinson","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2023-004513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the systematic review was to identify conceptual models and interventions designed to improve health literacy in caregivers of adults with a chronic disease/disability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for relevant literature. Articles were included if they focused on adults who provided informal care to someone aged 18+ with a chronic disease/disability. Quantitative studies were included if they reported an intervention designed to improve caregiver health literacy (CHL) and assessed outcomes using a validated measure of health literacy. Qualitative and mixed method studies were included if they described a conceptual model or framework of CHL or developed/assessed the feasibility of an intervention. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies were included. Five studies used pre-post design to assess outcomes of an intervention; four described intervention development and/or pilot testing; two described conceptual models. Two of five studies reported pre-post intervention improvements in CHL; one reported an improvement in one of nine health literacy domains; two reported no improvements following intervention. Interventions predominantly aimed to improve: caregiver understanding of the disease, treatment and potential outcomes, day-to-day care, self-care and health provider engagement. Few interventions targeted broader interpersonal and health service factors identified as influencing CHL.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Evidence on the development and assessment of comprehensive CHL interventions is scarce. Recommendations include the development of interventions that are guided by a CHL framework to ensure they address individual, interpersonal and health service/provider factors that influence CHL.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"300-318"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004513","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the systematic review was to identify conceptual models and interventions designed to improve health literacy in caregivers of adults with a chronic disease/disability.

Methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for relevant literature. Articles were included if they focused on adults who provided informal care to someone aged 18+ with a chronic disease/disability. Quantitative studies were included if they reported an intervention designed to improve caregiver health literacy (CHL) and assessed outcomes using a validated measure of health literacy. Qualitative and mixed method studies were included if they described a conceptual model or framework of CHL or developed/assessed the feasibility of an intervention. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.

Results: Eleven studies were included. Five studies used pre-post design to assess outcomes of an intervention; four described intervention development and/or pilot testing; two described conceptual models. Two of five studies reported pre-post intervention improvements in CHL; one reported an improvement in one of nine health literacy domains; two reported no improvements following intervention. Interventions predominantly aimed to improve: caregiver understanding of the disease, treatment and potential outcomes, day-to-day care, self-care and health provider engagement. Few interventions targeted broader interpersonal and health service factors identified as influencing CHL.

Discussion: Evidence on the development and assessment of comprehensive CHL interventions is scarce. Recommendations include the development of interventions that are guided by a CHL framework to ensure they address individual, interpersonal and health service/provider factors that influence CHL.

针对非正规护理人员的健康知识干预:系统综述。
目的:本系统性综述旨在确定旨在提高慢性病/残疾成人护理者健康素养的概念模型和干预措施:方法:检索了 MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO 和 Embase 中的相关文献。如果文章的研究对象是为 18 岁以上的慢性病/残疾患者提供非正式护理的成年人,则将其纳入研究范围。如果定量研究报告了旨在提高护理人员健康素养(CHL)的干预措施,并使用有效的健康素养测量方法对结果进行了评估,则将其纳入研究范围。如果定性研究和混合方法研究描述了 CHL 的概念模型或框架,或开发/评估了干预措施的可行性,则纳入研究。研究质量采用混合方法评估工具进行评估:结果:共纳入 11 项研究。其中五项研究采用前后设计来评估干预措施的结果;四项研究介绍了干预措施的开发和/或试点测试;两项研究介绍了概念模型。五项研究中有两项报告了干预前-干预后 CHL 的改善情况;一项报告了九个健康素养领域中一个领域的改善情况;两项报告了干预后没有改善情况。干预的主要目的是:提高护理人员对疾病、治疗和潜在结果、日常护理、自我护理和医疗服务提供者参与的理解。很少有干预措施针对被认为会影响 CHL 的更广泛的人际关系和医疗服务因素:讨论:有关制定和评估 CHL 综合干预措施的证据很少。建议包括制定以CHL框架为指导的干预措施,以确保干预措施能够解决影响CHL的个人、人际和医疗服务/提供者因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance. We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication. In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信