Disagreement between patients' and general practitioners' estimates of patient health literacy increases from the top to the bottom of the social ladder: a cross-sectional study in the Paris area.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Céline Casta, Sophie Bucher, Pierre Labitrie, Théotime Nadot, Henri Panjo, Laurent Rigal
{"title":"Disagreement between patients' and general practitioners' estimates of patient health literacy increases from the top to the bottom of the social ladder: a cross-sectional study in the Paris area.","authors":"Céline Casta, Sophie Bucher, Pierre Labitrie, Théotime Nadot, Henri Panjo, Laurent Rigal","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmad056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Associated with both socioeconomic position and health outcomes, health literacy (HL) may be a mechanism contributing to social disparities. However, it is often difficult for general practitioners (GPs) to assess their patients' HL level.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyse disagreements about patient HL between GPs and their patients according to the patient's socioeconomic position.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For each of the 15 participating GPs (from the Paris-Saclay University network), every adult consulting at the practice on a single day was recruited. Patients completed the European HL Survey questionnaire and provided socio-demographic information. For each patient, doctors answered 4 questions from the HL questionnaire with their opinion of the patient's HL. The doctor-patient disagreement about each patient's HL was analysed with mixed logistic models to study its associations with patients' occupational, educational, and financial characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis covered the 292 patients (88.2% of the 331 included patients) for whom both patients and GPs responded. The overall disagreement was 23.9%. In all, 71.8% of patients estimated their own HL as higher than their doctors did, and the gap between doctors' answers and those of their patients widened from the top to the bottom of the social ladder. The odd ratio for the 'synthetic disagreement' variable for workers versus managers was 3.48 (95% CI: 1.46-8.26).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lower the patient's place on the social ladder, the greater the gap between the patient's and doctor's opinion of the patient's HL. This greater gap may contribute to the reproduction or maintenance of social disparities in care and health.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Associated with both socioeconomic position and health outcomes, health literacy (HL) may be a mechanism contributing to social disparities. However, it is often difficult for general practitioners (GPs) to assess their patients' HL level.

Objective: To analyse disagreements about patient HL between GPs and their patients according to the patient's socioeconomic position.

Methods: For each of the 15 participating GPs (from the Paris-Saclay University network), every adult consulting at the practice on a single day was recruited. Patients completed the European HL Survey questionnaire and provided socio-demographic information. For each patient, doctors answered 4 questions from the HL questionnaire with their opinion of the patient's HL. The doctor-patient disagreement about each patient's HL was analysed with mixed logistic models to study its associations with patients' occupational, educational, and financial characteristics.

Results: The analysis covered the 292 patients (88.2% of the 331 included patients) for whom both patients and GPs responded. The overall disagreement was 23.9%. In all, 71.8% of patients estimated their own HL as higher than their doctors did, and the gap between doctors' answers and those of their patients widened from the top to the bottom of the social ladder. The odd ratio for the 'synthetic disagreement' variable for workers versus managers was 3.48 (95% CI: 1.46-8.26).

Conclusions: The lower the patient's place on the social ladder, the greater the gap between the patient's and doctor's opinion of the patient's HL. This greater gap may contribute to the reproduction or maintenance of social disparities in care and health.

患者和全科医生对患者健康素养估计的分歧从社会阶梯的顶端向底端递增:一项在巴黎地区进行的横断面研究。
背景:健康素养(HL)与社会经济地位和健康结果相关,可能是造成社会差异的一个机制。然而,全科医生通常很难评估患者的健康素养水平:根据患者的社会经济地位,分析全科医生与患者之间在患者健康素养方面的分歧:15 名参与调查的全科医生(来自巴黎-萨克雷大学网络)中的每一名全科医生都招募了一天内在诊所就诊的所有成年人。患者填写欧洲 HL 调查问卷并提供社会人口信息。对于每位患者,医生都要回答 HL 问卷中的 4 个问题,并附上他们对患者 HL 的看法。通过混合逻辑模型分析了医患双方对每位患者 HL 的不同意见,研究了其与患者职业、教育和经济特征的关系:分析涵盖了 292 名患者(占 331 名纳入患者的 88.2%),这些患者和全科医生都做出了回答。总体不同意率为 23.9%。总的来说,71.8%的患者对自身HL的估计高于医生的估计,医生和患者的答案之间的差距从社会阶梯的顶端向底端扩大。工人与管理人员的 "合成分歧 "变量的奇数比为 3.48(95% CI:1.46-8.26):病人在社会阶梯上的位置越低,病人和医生对病人 HL 的看法之间的差距就越大。这种较大的差距可能会导致护理和健康方面的社会差异的再现或维持。
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
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
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