Outcomes of Snackable Literacy-Oriented Videos for Parents with Low Health Literacy: An Exploratory Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In Canada, 60% of people aged 16 years and older are characterized as having low health literacy (HL) which impacts health outcomes and overall health status. Children of parents with low HL experience more emergency visits, brush their teeth less frequently, and are more likely to eat less nutritious food. In an attempt to overcome literacy issues and combat the barriers to information access affecting individuals with low HL, it has been advised that healthcare providers tailor the literacy requirements of their recommendations to the literacy levels of their patients through the dissemination of health videos. This can mitigate the stigma of low HL, allowing patients to view the content on their own as they may feel embarrassed or reluctant to ask for further clarification when presented with new or complex information. The literature on advancing HL highlights quantitative studies measuring particular interventions. Few have focused on evaluating or learning from interventions to make HL education accessible and aligned with peoples’ everyday lives.SETTING: Naître et grandir (N&G) is a trusted resource in Quebec, Canada which provides accessible, evidence-based information on pregnancy, child development, education, and health, to parents of children aged 0-8 years. A novel product comprises one-minute long, or snackable videos, displaying informative text on a screen at a fixed rate without narration.OBJECTIVES: The specific objectives of this study are to: (i) identify the strengths, limitations, and perceived individual outcomes of novel, literacy-oriented snackable videos from the perspective of parents with low HL, and (ii) evaluate the accessibility of N&G snackable videos through the application of the principles of accessible information outlined in Communiquer pour tous: Guide pour une information accessible.METHODOLOGY AND METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Through purposeful sampling, 18 participants were recruited from literacy-oriented community organizations in Quebec and were interviewed individually or in small groups, each watching 1 of 10 N&G snackable videos. Participants were parents of at least one child aged 10 years or younger who self-reported sociodemographic characteristics predicting low levels of HL, and shared their input on the perceived health outcomes of the viewed snackable video. A deductive-inductive qualitative thematic analysis was performed. Lastly, the usability and perceived advantages and disadvantages of N&G snackable videos were compared to webpages, audio-webpages, and traditional videos. Themes were derived from the Outcomes of Online Consumer Health Information conceptual framework and according to Communicating for all: A Guide to Accessible Information, as well as suggested by the data.RESULTS: Themes and subthemes related to the health outcomes of online health information (OHI) including the snackable video’s situational relevance, cognitive impact, use of OHI and health and healthcare related outcomes were identified by participants. No outcomes related to the impact of OHI on health care services were identified, and no new outcomes emerged from the data. The relevance and comprehensiveness of included information, the length and comprehensibility of chosen words, the choice of colours, and the brevity of the sentences are aligned with N&G’s mission to provide accessible health information. Participants further expressed that the poor application of the principles of accessibility regarding speed compromised understanding.CONCLUSION: Participants identified health outcomes of OHI for N&G snackable videos. Participants further recommended changes to the video’s format and content which will improve accessibility, and thus health literacy education. This will help combat disparities in health outcomes and battle against the impact of misinformation
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».