736 Health Literacy in Patients with Burn Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Burn injuries occur with a disproportionately higher frequency in vulnerable groups. Their health literacy (HL), defined as the way patients obtain, process, and understand health information, may be an important factor that influences access, care, and recovery after burns. This study aims to determine the current levels of health literacy and variables associated with poor health literacy for outpatients treated at two regional burn centres. Methods All eligible patients presenting to two tertiary outpatient burn centers were asked to participate. The Newest Vital Sign health literacy assessment tool and a sociodemographic survey were administered. The NVS scores were divided into poor (0-2), moderate (3-4), and adequate (5-6) health literacy. We first compared health literacy rates between sites using non-parametric Chi-squared test. We then developed a multivariable regression model using a stepwise construction with poor health literacy as our dependent variable. Included in the exploratory model were income, education level, working status, and age. Results Forty-nine patients with a mean age of 46.6 years (SD=17.4) were included; 57% (29/49) of patients identified as male. Most of the burn injuries (78%, 38/49) were less than 10% total body surface area. HL rates were poor, moderate, and adequate in 35% (17/49), 18% (9/29), and 47% (23/29), respectively. There were no differences in health literacy between the 2 sites. Age was the only independent predictor of poor health literacy in burn patients, with advanced age being associated with worse health literacy (95% CI: 1.001-1.119, p< 0.05). Income, education level and working status did not independently predict health literacy rates (Table 1). Conclusions More than half of patients treated at burn outpatient clinics have only poor or moderate health literacy. This study further suggests that older adults may be most at risk. This trend is consistent across two regional burn centres. This study highlights the importance of health literacy among patients with burn injury and stresses the importance of personalized and literacy-adjusted discussions surrounding care. Our next project will address the impact of health literacy on adherence to recommended therapies. Applicability of Research to Practice Poor health literacy is a barrier to obtaining burn care and is an important social determinant of health. We should identify factors associated with poor health literacy among patients with burn injury and improve the delivery of health information.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".