Effect of a health literacy intervention trial on knowledge about cardiovascular disease medications among Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a customised, structured cardiovascular disease (CVD) medication health literacy programme on medication knowledge among Indigenous people with, or at high risk of, CVD. DESIGN: Intervention trial with premeasures and postmeasures at multiple time points. SETTING: Indigenous primary care services in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: 171 Indigenous people aged ≥20 years of age who had at least one clinical diagnosis of a CVD event, or in Canada and Australia had a 5-year CVD risk ≥15%, and were prescribed at least two of the following CVD medication classes: statin, aspirin, ACE inhibitors and beta blockers. INTERVENTION: An education session delivered on three occasions over 1 month by registered nurses or health educators who had received training in health literacy and principles of adult education. An interactive tablet application was used during each session and an information booklet and pill card provided to participants. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge about the CVD medications assessed before and after each session. RESULTS: Knowledge at baseline (presession 1) was low, with the mean per cent correct answers highest for statins (34.0% correct answers), 29.4% for aspirin, 26.0% for beta blockers and 22.7% for ACE inhibitors. Adjusted analyses showed highly significant (P<0.001) increases in knowledge scores between preassessments and postassessments at all three time points for all medication classes. For the four medications, the absolute increases in adjusted per cent correct items from presession 1 to postsession 3 assessments were 60.1% for statins, 76.8% for aspirin, 71.4% for ACE inhibitor and 69.5% for beta blocker. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was highly effective in contextually diverse Indigenous primary healthcare services in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The findings from this study have important implications for health services working with populations with low health literacy more generally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001309875.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".