Impact of parental health literacy on the health outcomes of children with chronic disease globally: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Health literacy is the ability to understand and interpret health information and navigate the health-care system. Low health literacy is associated with poorer health knowledge and disease management, increased chronic illness, underutilisation of preventative health services and increased hospitalisations. The aim of the study is to review the available literature on the relationship between parental health literacy and health outcomes for children with chronic disease in high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science, and assessed study quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. We reviewed all relevant studies, and identified themes using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 1167 studies assessed, 49 were included in the review. All studies were of adequate quality. Twenty-two were from LMIC and 27 from HIC. Six themes were identified: Parental health literacy, parental education, socio-economic conditions, identity and culture, family factors, and health behaviours. In both HIC and LMIC, lower parental health literacy was associated with poorer child health outcomes. Disease-specific knowledge was found in a number of papers to directly impact parent health behaviour and child health outcomes, and may mitigate the effects of low parental health literacy. CONCLUSION: There is a clear link between parental health literacy, health behaviour and health outcomes for children with chronic disease. Disease-specific knowledge as a target for health-care interventions holds promise for application in low-resourced settings with parents (particularly mothers) who have lower health literacy, where disease-specific education may improve child health outcomes, although more research is required to determine how we can best facilitate these programmes.
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".