The Impact of Caregiver Health Literacy on Pediatric Asthma: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: There is increasing literature on the role of health literacy in asthma outcomes. Despite less than half of Americans having proficient health literacy, health literacy is an essential component in providing quality medical care. Observations: Most of the literature on the impact of health literacy on asthma outcomes is from the adult asthmatic population, where lower health literacy is associated with poorer asthma outcomes, including decreased quality of life, worse asthma control, and more Emergency Department visits for asthma. Although a few studies look at caregiver health literacy and pediatric asthma outcomes, the results have been congruous, demonstrating an effect across the board. Challenges exist in the evaluation of caregiver health literacy by physicians. Various tools are available to assist in the evaluation although a few are validated for asthma. There is no uniform strategy that is successful in the management of health literacy. When counseling on asthma medications, the use of a teach-back method with caregivers to ensure proper understanding of the inhaler device technique may be beneficial. Various educational materials have been demonstrated to improve the caregiver inhaler technique. Asthma action plans that incorporate picture-based written plans may be more suitable for caregivers with poor health literacy. Improving verbal and written communication as well as a physician's focus on how numerical data are presented to families may be beneficial. For verbal communication, strategies include using patient-centered language, speaking slowly, and repeating/confirming understanding of key points. A significant step forward has been an increasing focus on health literacy within asthma guidelines both in the United States and internationally. Moving forward, further research into the effects of health literacy, specifically within the pediatric asthma population, and improved means to assess and mediate that impact are required. Conclusions and Relevance: An appreciation of the role of health literacy is essential in providing proper asthma care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".