Abstract: One Third of Plastic and Surgical Patients Have Limited Health Literacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Health literacy has been defined as the extent to which patients are able to understand and act upon health information.1 Limited or inadequate health literacy has been shown to have a negative impact on patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and risk of hospitalization.2,3 This complex concept is of high importance for surgeons as their patients have to comprehend the nature, risks and benefits of surgical procedures, adhere to strict perioperative rules, and make complex care decisions about interventions or lack thereof.4 The aim of this review was to evaluate the prevalence of reported inadequate health literacy levels and the measurement tools used in the plastic and surgical patient populations. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Cochrane guidelines. Relevant studies reporting health literacy measurements in surgical patient populations were identified from MEDLINE and Embase published from inception until January 14th2017. Two-stage screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Data on study design, sample size, patient population, health literacy measurement tool, and prevalence of inadequate health literacy were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 934 abstracts were screened, 103 articles were reviewed and 57 met inclusion criteria. Five randomized controlled trials, 8 prospective cohorts, 36 cross-sectional studies were included including only 11 (19.0%) studies published before 2010. 18,894 surgical patients were included in these studies and the prevalence of inadequate health literacy was 32.8% (range 2.8–80.7%, 95%CI: 25.9–40.1). Fifteen (26.3%) studies did not present health literacy measurement results. Numerous health literacy measurement tools were used (16 validated, 6 non-validated). Only five studies pertained to the hand surgery and one to the plastic surgery literature. CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrates a high prevalence of limited health literacy within the plastic and overall surgical patient populations. While there is considerable variation in measurement tools currently being used, our review suggests a great need for patient-education and decision-aid tools for surgical patients with limited health literacy. Reference Citations: 1. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Institute of Medicine. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. 2. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Viera A, Crotty K, et al. Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review. Evid Report Technology Assess. 2011;199:1–941. 3. Komenaka IK, Nodora JN, Machado L, Hsu CH, Klemens AE, Martinez ME, et al. Health literacy assessment and patient satisfaction in surgical practice. Surgery. 2014;155:374–383. 4. McCaffery KJ, Smith SK, Wolf M. The challenge of shared decision making among patients with lower literacy: a framework for research and development. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:35–44.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».