A systematic review of the effectiveness of community-based interventions aimed at improving health literacy of parents/carers of children.

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Perspectives in Public Health Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-29 DOI:10.1177/17579139231180746
S L Belfrage, M Husted, Sds Fraser, S Patel, J A Faulkner
{"title":"A systematic review of the effectiveness of community-based interventions aimed at improving health literacy of parents/carers of children.","authors":"S L Belfrage, M Husted, Sds Fraser, S Patel, J A Faulkner","doi":"10.1177/17579139231180746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of community-based health literacy interventions in improving the health literacy of parents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of six databases - MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Education Source - was conducted to identify relevant articles. Risk of bias was assessed using version two of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials or the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. The study findings were grouped and synthesised following the synthesis without meta-analysis framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven community-based health literacy interventions for parents were identified. Study design included randomised controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 4), non-randomised studies with comparison group (<i>n</i> = 4), and non-randomised studies without a comparison group (<i>n</i> = 3). Interventions were delivered digitally, in person or a combination of the two. The risk of bias was high in over half the studies (<i>n</i> = 7). The main findings of the studies showed some potential for both in person and digital interventions to increase parental health literacy. Studies were heterogeneous preventing a meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Community-based, health literacy interventions have been identified as potential methods for enhancing parental health literacy. Due to the small number of included studies and their potential for bias, these results must be interpreted with caution. This study emphasises the need for additional theory and evidence-based research on the long-term effects of community interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47256,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"25-31"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800687/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139231180746","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of community-based health literacy interventions in improving the health literacy of parents.

Methods: A systematic review of six databases - MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Education Source - was conducted to identify relevant articles. Risk of bias was assessed using version two of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials or the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. The study findings were grouped and synthesised following the synthesis without meta-analysis framework.

Results: Eleven community-based health literacy interventions for parents were identified. Study design included randomised controlled trials (n = 4), non-randomised studies with comparison group (n = 4), and non-randomised studies without a comparison group (n = 3). Interventions were delivered digitally, in person or a combination of the two. The risk of bias was high in over half the studies (n = 7). The main findings of the studies showed some potential for both in person and digital interventions to increase parental health literacy. Studies were heterogeneous preventing a meta-analysis.

Conclusion: Community-based, health literacy interventions have been identified as potential methods for enhancing parental health literacy. Due to the small number of included studies and their potential for bias, these results must be interpreted with caution. This study emphasises the need for additional theory and evidence-based research on the long-term effects of community interventions.

系统审查旨在提高儿童父母/照料者健康素养的社区干预措施的有效性。
目的:本系统综述的目的是检查基于社区的健康素养干预措施在提高父母健康素养方面的有效性。方法:对MEDLINE、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Cochrane Library、Embase和Education Source六个数据库进行系统综述,以确定相关文章。使用Cochrane随机对照试验偏倚风险工具第二版或Cochrane协作干预措施非随机研究偏倚风险评估偏倚风险。对研究结果进行分组和综合,采用无荟萃分析的综合框架。结果:确定了11项基于社区的父母健康素养干预措施。研究设计包括随机对照试验(n = 4)、有对照组的非随机研究(n = 4)和没有对照组的非随机研究(n = 3)。干预措施采用数字化、亲自或两者结合的方式进行。超过一半的研究(n = 7)存在较高的偏倚风险。研究的主要发现表明,面对面和数字干预都有可能提高父母的健康素养。研究是异质性的,因此不能进行荟萃分析。结论:以社区为基础的健康素养干预措施已被确定为提高父母健康素养的潜在方法。由于纳入的研究数量少且存在潜在的偏倚,必须谨慎解释这些结果。这项研究强调需要对社区干预的长期影响进行额外的理论和循证研究。
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
Perspectives in Public Health
Perspectives in Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Public Health is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal. It is practice orientated and features current topics and opinions; news and views on current health issues; case studies; book reviews; letters to the Editor; as well as updates on the Society"s work. The journal also commissions articles for themed issues and publishes original peer-reviewed articles. Perspectives in Public Health"s primary aim is to be an invaluable resource for the Society"s members, who are health-promoting professionals from many disciplines, including environmental health, health protection, health and safety, food safety and nutrition, building and engineering, primary care, academia and government.
×
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