Do rehabilitation professionals need to consider their clients’ health literacy for effective practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To discuss the importance of integrating health literacy into rehabilitation practice. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions and clients' long-term health might depend on various factors, including health literacy. Health literacy is defined as the ability to access, understand, evaluate and communicate information as a way to promote, maintain and improve health in a variety of settings over the life-course. Rehabilitation professionals are often uniformed about and neglect health literacy in their interventions. METHOD: The scientific and grey literature on health and, more specifically, rehabilitation and health promotion was reviewed. The MEDLINE, OTDBASE, CINAHL, AMED and MANTIS databases were searched by combining the keyword (1) 'health literacy' with the keywords (2) 'rehabilitation', 'physical therapy', 'occupational therapy' or 'health promotion'. RESULTS: Health literacy is one of the foundations of individual health and might have an impact on interventions, the individual and society. All papers addressing both health literacy and rehabilitation (n = 10) specifically mentioned that rehabilitation professionals need to consider their clients' health literacy. Rehabilitation is particularly linked to health literacy because both stress the importance of (1) capacities, functioning, participation and empowerment of clients; (2) holistic approach; (3) client-centred practice; (4) teaching of information and methods; and (5) access to services and equity issues. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we think it is important that rehabilitation professionals be aware of the importance of health literacy and intervene to improve it. The challenge is now to better understand how health literacy influences the effectiveness of rehabilitation and health outcomes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".