Patients’ and providers’ perceptions of the impact of health literacy on communication in pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most prevalent form of chronic respiratory diseases worldwide. Pulmonary rehabilitation, including self-management education, highlights the importance of good patient-provider communication in establishing optimal care. There is a growing awareness of the potential impact of health literacy (HL) on the patients' access to and understanding of medical information. This study was designed to explore the patients' and health care professionals' (HCPs) perceptions of the role of HL in health communication. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 12 patients and 20 HCPs at a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Center in Metropolitan Toronto. Although the term health literacy was not familiar to many patients, the contribution of knowledge to patient well-being was consistently identified by patients and HCPs. Barriers to communication included provider time constraints and the use of medical jargon. For providers they also included patient characteristics, language, culture and awareness of health resources. Approaches that might improve communication incorporated family support, peer support, better print and visual teaching material and a trusting empathic patient-provider relationship. The findings provide an increased understanding of patients' and providers' perceptions of HL as a barrier to effective communication of medical information to patients with COPD as well as approaches that might improve this communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".