Health literacy and communication open最新文献

{"title":"Limited cancer health literacy rates and factors associated with cancer health literacy in persons with or without a cancer diagnosis.","authors":"Levent Dumenci, Danial L Riddle","doi":"10.1080/28355245.2026.2641290","DOIUrl":"10.1080/28355245.2026.2641290","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health literacy is a key factor for health communication efforts. This is especially true for preventing noncommunicable chronic diseases such as cancer. Specifically, limited cancer health literacy (LCHL) is a risk factor for not engaging in disease prevention and treatment.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to obtain model-based estimates of LCHL rates and explore rate differences in sociodemographic characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from cancer patients (N=1,306) and those without cancer (N=512) collected from the U.S. were used to estimate crude and adjusted LCHL rates using latent class analysis. Measurement invariance tests were conducted between demographic groups to test the assumption that LCHL has the same meaning across subpopulations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Scalar invariance model was supported in all comparisons. Among cancer patients, approximately 10-fold crude rate differences in LCHL were found between Blacks (50%) and Whites (5%), patients with education level up to high school (54%) and above high school (6%), as well as patients earning less than $40K (50%) and $40K or above (4%) annually. A parallel 10-fold difference between race, education, and income groups was also found among persons without cancer but the LCHL rates were somewhat higher among persons without cancer than those with cancer across all groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Adjusted rate differences between groups were quite similar. LCHL is highly prevalent among Blacks, under-educated, and low-income persons with and without a diagnosis of cancer. Race, educational attainment, and income are the primary drivers of disparities in cancer health literacy. Our findings help to inform targeted health communication efforts to minimize adverse health and financial consequences of LCHL.</p>","PeriodicalId":521204,"journal":{"name":"Health literacy and communication open","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13059927/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147648794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Engagement of outpatient providers in a deprescribing trial for hospitalized older patients transitioning to post-acute care facilities.","authors":"Amanda S Mixon, Emily Hollingsworth, Thomas E Strayer, Thomas Rangsikul, Avantika Shah, Sandra F Simmons, Eduard E Vasilevskis","doi":"10.1080/28355245.2025.2587314","DOIUrl":"10.1080/28355245.2025.2587314","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy often involves conversations between patients and their providers. Prior studies have surveyed healthcare providers' willingness to deprescribe medications for hypothetical patients and defined barriers and enablers to deprescribing from provider perspectives. Few studies, however, have examined provider barriers and enablers based on their response to actual deprescribing recommendations for patients during care transitions.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess providers' response to deprescribing recommendations for patients enrolled in the Shed-MEDS clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a mixed methods study within the Shed-MEDS clinical trial, which included older patients with polypharmacy transitioning from the hospital to post-acute care (PAC) for short-term rehabilitation to home. During hospitalization, a study clinician reviewed all medications taken by each patient at home and in hospital, including prescribed and over-the-counter medications. The study clinician then discussed deprescribing recommendations for medications with the patient. If the patient agreed, the study clinician contacted the outpatient prescribing provider to discuss deprescribing recommendations and assess provider agreement. Providers' responses were categorized into barriers and enablers using a published framework: awareness, inertia, self-efficacy, feasibility, and/or tacit (no clear reason given). Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 186 patients randomized to the intervention, 177 completed the deprescribing discussion with the study clinician. The study clinician was successful in contacting at least one outpatient provider for 101 patients. Among 101 patients, 983 outpatient medications were recommended for deprescribing. Patients agreed to deprescribe most of these medications (72%). The study clinician was able to discuss deprescribing with outpatient providers for 315 medications, of which they agreed to deprescribe 273 (87%). Vitamins and supplements were discussed most often. Ultimately, 242 (89%) medications that providers agreed to were successfully deprescribed. The most common provider enablers to deprescribing were categorized as tacit (37%), self-efficacy (30%), and inertia (27%). However, inertia (60%) and self-efficacy (42%) also were common provider barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Outpatient providers agreed with most deprescribing recommendations shared by a study clinician following patient agreement. The most common barrier to deprescribing among outpatient providers was their preference not to change medicines (inertia) and/or not feeling confident in their ability to make these changes (self-efficacy).</p>","PeriodicalId":521204,"journal":{"name":"Health literacy and communication open","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12811018/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146000365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}