Institutional-level assessment of patients’ print health literacy: evaluating Ghana’s patient rights charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ghana, the Patient Rights Charter outlines patient entitlements and responsibilities, but its complexity may limit comprehension. This study assessed patients’ print health literacy, including knowledge, reading fluency, and experiences with the charter, to enhance its accessibility and presentation. An exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted with 222 inpatients across three district hospitals. Data were collected using a questionnaire and a 100-word passage from the charter. Analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0, applying descriptive statistics, t-tests, and multivariable regression to identify differences and factors influencing patients’ print literacy. Overall, 59% of participants were unaware of the charter, and only 2.7% could recall three to four patient rights and responsibilities. A significant difference in reading fluency (−0.392; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.582 to −0.201; t = –4.05; p = 0.001) was observed between pre-tertiary and tertiary-educated patients. Factors associated with fluency included education level (β = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.57; p = 0.01), age (β = –0.19; 95% CI: −0.31 to −0.05; p = 0.01), and gender (β = –0.20; 95% CI: −0.45 to −0.11; p = 0.01). The findings suggest that mere display of the patient charter is inadequate for awareness. A multifaceted approach, integrating plain language and multimedia education, is essential for improving comprehension and patient engagement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".