Interventions to promote health literacy among working-age populations experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Experiencing financial insecurity and being underserved is often associated with low health literacy, i.e., the ability to identify, obtain, interpret and act upon health information, which may result in poor health outcomes. Little is known about effective interventions for promoting health literacy among underserved populations. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the literature on such interventions and identify characteristics that differentiate more effective interventions. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines we searched the databases SCOPUS, Pubmed, Web of Science core collection and CINAHL. We included primary studies with a quantitative study design and control groups testing interventions to increase health literacy or health knowledge in underserved populations between 18 and 65 years. Where possible, we converted effect sizes into Cohen’s d and compared mean differences of intervention and control groups. Albatross plots were created to summarize the results according to different health literacy and health knowledge outcomes. Results We screened 3,696 titles and abstracts and 206 full texts. In total, 86 articles were analyzed, of which 55 were summarized in seven albatross plots. The majority of the studies ( n = 55) were conducted in the United States and had a randomized controlled study design ( n = 44). More effective intervention approaches assessed needs of participants through focus group discussions prior to conducting the intervention, used bilingual educational materials, and included professionals fluent in the first languages of the study population as intervention deliverers. Additionally, the use of educational materials in video and text form, fotonovelas and interactive group education sessions with role playing exercises were observed to be effective. Discussion Although the outcomes addressed in the included studies were heterogeneous, effective intervention approaches were often culturally sensitive and developed tailored educational materials. Interventions aiming to promote health literacy in underserved populations should hence consider applying similar approaches. Systematic review registration : https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=323801 , PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42022323801.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".