Health Literacy and Serious or Persistent Mental Illness: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health literacy is increasingly recognized as a major determinant of health; however, our insights into the health literacy strengths and needs of adults living with serious or persistent mental illness remain limited by a notable lack of research in this area. Improving our understanding is important because people in this group are especially vulnerable to numerous negative health outcomes, many preventable. Objective: To assess the health literacy strengths and needs of people living with serious or persistent mental illness in terms of their ability to acquire, understand, and use information about their illness and the health services they require. Methods: A cross-sectional convergent mixed methods design guided by the Ophelia Access and Equity Framework. People diagnosed with serious or persistent mental illness were offered participation. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected using questionnaires (Health Literacy Questionnaire [HLQ], World Health Organization [WHO-5]) and semi-structured interviews. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified and grouped participants with similar health literacy scores into mutually exclusive groups, for the development of clinical vignettes. Key Results: Participants struggled most with the appraisal of health information (HLQ mean 2.72, standard deviation [ SD ] .63 [scale 1–4]) and navigating what they often perceived to be a confusing health care system (HLQ mean 3.29, SD .79 [scale 1–5]). On the other hand, most participants reported positive experiences with their health care providers (HLQ mean 3.19, SD .62 [scale 1–4]) and generally felt understood and supported. The cluster analysis suggests we should not assume people living with serious or persistent mental illness have homogeneous HL strengths and needs, meaning a one-size-fits-all solution for improving health literacy in this diverse group will likely not be a successful strategy. It will be important to explore solutions that embrace patient-centered care approaches. Conclusions: This study is one of only a handful assessing the health literacy strengths and needs of people living with serious or persistent mental illness. By collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, then analyzing the results using sophisticated cluster analysis methods, the authors were able to develop clinical vignettes per the Ophelia Framework that offer results in a practical way that can be readily understood and acted upon by stakeholders. We found that the HLQ is a measure of HL that is acceptable to mental health clients, and our findings provide preliminary data on the use of this instrument in the mental health population. [ HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice . 2023;7(1):e2–e13. ] Plain Language Summary: This study explored the health literacy strengths and needs of people living with serious or persistent mental illness. The results showed a mix of strengths and needs among our participants, though several consistent themes emerged. Most of our participants felt understood and supported by their health care providers, but many often struggle with judging the quality of health information and finding their way through the health care system.
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 | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".