MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298326943 · doi:10.2196/39023

Health Literacy in Health Professionals Two Years into the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results From a Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4298326943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eva-Maria Grepmeier, Maja Pawellek, Janina Curbach, Julia von Sommoggy, Karl Philipp Drewitz, Claudia Hasenpusch, Eva Maria Bitzer, Christian Apfelbacher, Uwe Matterne

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPsycINFOPandemicObservational studyHealth literacyCritical appraisalContext (archaeology)MEDLINEPublic healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health carePopulationMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineLiteracyMedical educationNursingAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is an important public health goal but also crucial in individuals providing medical care. During the pandemic, COVID-19-related HL of health professionals (HPs) has gained momentum; it helps to minimize the risk of self-infection, on the one hand, and to protect patients and relatives from infection, on the other. However, comprehensive information about the levels of individual pandemic-related HL in HPs is scarce. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed at describing the extent of existing research on HL (concept) conducted in HPs (population) in the COVID-19 pandemic (context). The review intends to map the literature on HL in HPs, thereby highlighting research gaps. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted using the methodology of Khalil et al (2016). This involved an electronic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and PsycInfo and a hand search. The included studies were iteratively examined to find items representing the four HL dimensions of access, understand, critically appraise, and apply COVID-19-related health information. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 3875 references. Only 7 (1.4%) of the 489 included studies explicitly stated to have addressed HL; 2 (0.4%) studies attempted to develop an instrument measuring COVID-19-related HL in HPs; 6 (1.2%) studies included an HL measure in an observational survey design. Of the remainder, the vast majority used a cross-sectional design. The dimensions access and understand were frequently examined, but few studies looked at the dimensions critical appraisal or apply. Very few studies reported an intervention aiming to improve a COVID-19-related HL outcome. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of COVID-19-related HL among HPs are necessary to ensure not only safe practice with necessary protection of HPs, their patients, and relatives, but also successful care delivery and subsequently improved health outcomes in the long term. To advance our understanding of how high COVID-19-related HL manifests itself in HPs, how it relates to health outcomes, and how it can be improved, more research is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework dbfa5; https://osf.io/dbfa5/.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.438 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207