Health literacy interventions for reducing the use of primary and emergency services for minor health problems: a systematic review

A. O’Cathain, Alexis Foster, Chris Carroll, L. Preston, M. Ogden, M. Clowes, J. Protheroe
{"title":"Health literacy interventions for reducing the use of primary and emergency services for minor health problems: a systematic review","authors":"A. O’Cathain, Alexis Foster, Chris Carroll, L. Preston, M. Ogden, M. Clowes, J. Protheroe","doi":"10.3310/ivqj9044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Health literacy is the ability to find information, understand information, know how to act on information and know which services to use. Having higher levels of health literacy may help patients to look after minor problems themselves (self-care). It may also help to reduce patients’ perceived need for contacting health services for minor health problems, to reduce the perceived urgency of problems or to improve patients’ ability to identify and choose from the range of available services. Interventions to improve health literacy for minor health problems have been evaluated, but their effectiveness at reducing use of primary care and emergency services has not been synthesised.\n \n \n \n The key objectives were as follows: (1) to construct a typology of interventions that aim to reduce primary or emergency care use, (2) to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of different types of health literacy interventions and (3) to consider how stakeholders in the UK could operationalise the evidence.\n \n \n \n The interventions being reviewed were initiatives that help members of the population to self-care or make decisions about whether or not and where to seek health care for minor health problems.\n \n \n \n This study was a systematic review with stakeholder involvement.\n \n \n \n A meeting was held with 14 stakeholders (including patients, carers and the public) to guide the systematic review. This was followed by a multicomponent review of quantitative and qualitative research. Database literature searches were undertaken in Ovid MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Interscience), EMBASE (via OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO), PsycINFO (via OVID), Web of Science and Sociological Abstracts. The search was limited to English-language publications from 1990–2020. To assess study quality, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for non-randomised studies. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. The review was followed by a meeting with 16 stakeholders to interpret the results.\n \n \n \n A total of 67 articles (64 studies) were included: 37 from the USA, 16 from the UK, 12 from the rest of Europe and two from the rest of the world. There were seven intervention types: navigation tools directing people to the range of services available (n = 7); written education about managing minor health problems in booklet or website format (n = 17); person-delivered education (n = 5); written education with person-delivered education (n = 17); multicomponent of written education, person-delivered education and mass media campaign (n = 5); self-triage (n = 9); and other (n = 7). Our team assessed the readability and user-friendliness of interventions, and found that these varied widely. When assessed, most studies measuring satisfaction with the intervention, enablement and perceived changes to behaviour showed positive results. Of 30 articles reporting impact on emergency department attendances, 19 (63%) showed a reduction, and 16/27 (59%) articles measuring impact on general practice consultations showed a reduction. Variation in the evidence base was not explained by any research, context or intervention characteristics. Only eight articles measured safety: these identified no problems.\n \n \n \n There was inconsistency in how the outcomes were measured, so a meta-analysis was not possible.\n \n \n \n Health literacy interventions have potential to affect emergency and primary care use, but the evidence base is inconsistent.\n \n \n \n It is important to continue to evaluate these types of initiatives.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020214206.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/ivqj9044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health literacy is the ability to find information, understand information, know how to act on information and know which services to use. Having higher levels of health literacy may help patients to look after minor problems themselves (self-care). It may also help to reduce patients’ perceived need for contacting health services for minor health problems, to reduce the perceived urgency of problems or to improve patients’ ability to identify and choose from the range of available services. Interventions to improve health literacy for minor health problems have been evaluated, but their effectiveness at reducing use of primary care and emergency services has not been synthesised. The key objectives were as follows: (1) to construct a typology of interventions that aim to reduce primary or emergency care use, (2) to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of different types of health literacy interventions and (3) to consider how stakeholders in the UK could operationalise the evidence. The interventions being reviewed were initiatives that help members of the population to self-care or make decisions about whether or not and where to seek health care for minor health problems. This study was a systematic review with stakeholder involvement. A meeting was held with 14 stakeholders (including patients, carers and the public) to guide the systematic review. This was followed by a multicomponent review of quantitative and qualitative research. Database literature searches were undertaken in Ovid MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Interscience), EMBASE (via OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO), PsycINFO (via OVID), Web of Science and Sociological Abstracts. The search was limited to English-language publications from 1990–2020. To assess study quality, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for non-randomised studies. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. The review was followed by a meeting with 16 stakeholders to interpret the results. A total of 67 articles (64 studies) were included: 37 from the USA, 16 from the UK, 12 from the rest of Europe and two from the rest of the world. There were seven intervention types: navigation tools directing people to the range of services available (n = 7); written education about managing minor health problems in booklet or website format (n = 17); person-delivered education (n = 5); written education with person-delivered education (n = 17); multicomponent of written education, person-delivered education and mass media campaign (n = 5); self-triage (n = 9); and other (n = 7). Our team assessed the readability and user-friendliness of interventions, and found that these varied widely. When assessed, most studies measuring satisfaction with the intervention, enablement and perceived changes to behaviour showed positive results. Of 30 articles reporting impact on emergency department attendances, 19 (63%) showed a reduction, and 16/27 (59%) articles measuring impact on general practice consultations showed a reduction. Variation in the evidence base was not explained by any research, context or intervention characteristics. Only eight articles measured safety: these identified no problems. There was inconsistency in how the outcomes were measured, so a meta-analysis was not possible. Health literacy interventions have potential to affect emergency and primary care use, but the evidence base is inconsistent. It is important to continue to evaluate these types of initiatives. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020214206. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
减少对小健康问题使用初级和紧急服务的卫生扫盲干预措施:系统审查
卫生素养是查找信息、理解信息、知道如何根据信息采取行动和知道使用哪些服务的能力。具有较高的卫生知识水平可能有助于患者自己处理一些小问题(自我保健)。它还可能有助于减少患者认为需要为轻微健康问题联系保健服务,减少问题的紧迫性,或提高患者识别和选择各种可用服务的能力。为提高对小健康问题的卫生知识普及程度而采取的干预措施已得到评价,但这些干预措施在减少初级保健和紧急服务使用方面的效果尚未得到综合评价。主要目标如下:(1)构建旨在减少初级或紧急护理使用的干预措施类型,(2)综合不同类型健康素养干预措施有效性的证据,(3)考虑英国的利益相关者如何利用这些证据。正在审查的干预措施是帮助人口成员自我保健或决定是否以及在哪里为轻微健康问题寻求保健的举措。本研究是一个有利益相关者参与的系统回顾。与14名持份者(包括病人、护理人员和公众)举行会议,以指导系统审查。随后是对定量和定性研究的多成分审查。数据库文献检索在Ovid MEDLINE、Cochrane图书馆(通过Wiley Interscience)、EMBASE(通过Ovid)、护理和相关健康文献累积索引(通过EBSCO)、PsycINFO(通过Ovid)、Web of Science和Sociological Abstracts中进行。检索仅限于1990-2020年的英文出版物。为了评估研究质量,随机对照试验使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具,非随机研究使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表。进行了叙述综合。审查结束后,与16个利益相关者举行了一次会议,以解释结果。共纳入67篇文章(64项研究):37篇来自美国,16篇来自英国,12篇来自欧洲其他地区,2篇来自世界其他地区。有七种干预类型:导航工具将人们引导到可用的服务范围(n = 7);以小册子或网站形式进行关于处理小健康问题的书面教育(n = 17);个人教育(n = 5);书面教育与个人教育相结合(n = 17);书面教育、个人教育和大众媒体运动的多组成部分(n = 5);自我分类(n = 9);另一个(n = 7)我们的团队评估了干预措施的可读性和用户友好性,并发现这些差异很大。当评估时,大多数测量干预满意度的研究,使能和感知到的行为变化显示出积极的结果。在报告对急诊科就诊率影响的30篇文章中,19篇(63%)显示减少,16/27篇(59%)测量对全科医生咨询的影响显示减少。证据基础的变化不能用任何研究、背景或干预特征来解释。只有8篇文章测量了安全性:这些没有发现任何问题。测量结果的方法不一致,因此不可能进行荟萃分析。卫生扫盲干预措施有可能影响急诊和初级保健的使用,但证据基础不一致。继续评估这些类型的计划是很重要的。本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42020214206。该项目由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究方案资助,将全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第10卷,第38期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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