Health Literacy Assessment Tools in Spine Surgery.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Clinical Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2025-07-11 DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001871

Elyette Lugo, Dhruv Garg, Branden Lee, Victor Cardona-Perez, Amit Jain

{"title":"Health Literacy Assessment Tools in Spine Surgery.","authors":"Elyette Lugo, Dhruv Garg, Branden Lee, Victor Cardona-Perez, Amit Jain","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Study design: Scoping review.Objective: To summarize and provide existing health literacy (HL) assessment tools used in spine surgery and identify their advantages, limitations, and gaps in measuring spine-specific health literacy.Summary of background data: Health literacy plays a crucial role in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in spine surgery, where complex decisions and comprehension are required. However, the current tools used to assess HL often lack spine-specific content and fail to address the multidimensional nature of HL, such as numeracy, print, and visual comprehension.Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in August 2024. Studies published between 2014 and 2024, involving human participants and directly assessing HL in patients with spinal conditions, were included. Data on study design, HL tools, HL dimensions, and associated sociodemographic factors were extracted and analyzed descriptively.Results: Nine studies, encompassing 2958 spine patients, met the inclusion criteria. Eight HL tools were identified, including 3 objective (LiMP, NVS, and REALM-SF) and 5 subjective methods (BRIEF, verbal and visual comprehension tasks, surveys, and single-item screening questions). The studies covered various HL dimensions, including print literacy (n=3), print and numeracy literacy (n=1), combined print, oral, and numeracy literacy (n=1), oral and visual comprehension (n=2), and a mix of print and oral literacy (n=1). Limited HL was reported in 9%-50% of patients and was associated with older age, lower education levels, non-native English speakers, and socioeconomic disparities. None of the tools specifically addressed spine-related literacy needs.Conclusion: Current HL tools used in spine surgery focus primarily on general literacy skills and lack spine-specific components. Developing a comprehensive, spine-focused HL tool that incorporates multiple dimensions is crucial to improving patient understanding and shared decision-making.Level of evidence: Level V.","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001871","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Scoping review.

Objective: To summarize and provide existing health literacy (HL) assessment tools used in spine surgery and identify their advantages, limitations, and gaps in measuring spine-specific health literacy.

Summary of background data: Health literacy plays a crucial role in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in spine surgery, where complex decisions and comprehension are required. However, the current tools used to assess HL often lack spine-specific content and fail to address the multidimensional nature of HL, such as numeracy, print, and visual comprehension.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in August 2024. Studies published between 2014 and 2024, involving human participants and directly assessing HL in patients with spinal conditions, were included. Data on study design, HL tools, HL dimensions, and associated sociodemographic factors were extracted and analyzed descriptively.

Results: Nine studies, encompassing 2958 spine patients, met the inclusion criteria. Eight HL tools were identified, including 3 objective (LiMP, NVS, and REALM-SF) and 5 subjective methods (BRIEF, verbal and visual comprehension tasks, surveys, and single-item screening questions). The studies covered various HL dimensions, including print literacy (n=3), print and numeracy literacy (n=1), combined print, oral, and numeracy literacy (n=1), oral and visual comprehension (n=2), and a mix of print and oral literacy (n=1). Limited HL was reported in 9%-50% of patients and was associated with older age, lower education levels, non-native English speakers, and socioeconomic disparities. None of the tools specifically addressed spine-related literacy needs.

Conclusion: Current HL tools used in spine surgery focus primarily on general literacy skills and lack spine-specific components. Developing a comprehensive, spine-focused HL tool that incorporates multiple dimensions is crucial to improving patient understanding and shared decision-making.

Level of evidence: Level V.

查看原文本刊更多论文

脊柱外科健康素养评估工具。

研究设计：范围审查。目的：总结和提供脊柱外科现有的健康素养（HL）评估工具，并确定其在测量脊柱特异性健康素养方面的优势、局限性和差距。背景资料摘要：健康素养在患者报告的结果（PROs）中起着至关重要的作用，特别是在需要复杂决策和理解的脊柱外科手术中。然而，目前用于评估HL的工具通常缺乏脊柱特异性内容，无法解决HL的多维性，如计算、打印和视觉理解。方法：于2024年8月对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行全面检索。纳入了2014年至2024年间发表的涉及人类参与者并直接评估脊柱疾病患者HL的研究。对研究设计、HL工具、HL维度和相关社会人口因素的数据进行提取和描述性分析。结果：9项研究，包括2958名脊柱患者，符合纳入标准。确定了8种HL工具，包括3种客观方法（LiMP、NVS和REALM-SF）和5种主观方法（BRIEF、口头和视觉理解任务、调查和单项筛选问题）。这些研究涵盖了HL的不同维度，包括印刷能力（n=3）、印刷和算术能力（n=1）、印刷、口语和算术能力的结合（n=1）、口头和视觉理解（n=2）以及印刷和口语能力的混合（n=1）。9%-50%的患者报告有局限性HL，与年龄较大、受教育程度较低、非英语母语者和社会经济差异有关。这些工具都没有专门解决与脊柱相关的读写需求。结论：目前脊柱外科中使用的HL工具主要侧重于一般读写技能，缺乏脊柱特异性组件。开发一个综合的、以脊柱为中心的HL工具，结合多个维度，对于提高患者的理解和共同决策至关重要。证据等级：V级。

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

Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

5.30%

发文量

236

期刊介绍： Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.