Public health nurses’ perceptions of health literacy in adolescent patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To obtain and document public health nurses’ thoughts about health literacy in, and related communication practices with, adolescent patients. Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of public health nurses working with adolescents, either part- or full-time. Emerging themes were identified using content analysis and confirmed by two health literacy researchers and a public health nurse. Results: Nurses ascribed different meanings to the term health literacy, the most common being an understanding of one’s health or health-related information. They provided various types of health information to adolescent patients, used more than one mode of communication, and assessed adolescents’ understanding primarily by asking questions. Tailored approaches employed by nurses to communicate information to adolescents included the use of peer educators in schools; business cards with information on where to seek more information; and text messaging. These approaches, however, were not uniformly adopted and some nurses expressed concerns about the lack of security associated with the use of text messaging. Anxiety/fear in adolescents emerged as a prominent patient-related barrier to effective communication and stemmed, in some cases, from adolescents’ lack of understanding about confidentiality policies. Major provider-related barriers to effective communication included hours and locations of services that were inconvenient for adolescents, and limited time to spend with adolescent patients. Conclusions: Attention is needed to patient- and provider-related barriers that may limit or impeded efforts by public health nurses to promote health literacy in adolescent patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".