Dataset Information

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one's skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown.

Methods

We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. To identify studies, we started with an AHRQ-funded systematic review of HL and health outcomes. We then looked for newer studies by searching MEDLINE from 1 February 2010 to 9 December 2014. We included English language studies meeting pre-specified criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and studies for inclusion and graded study quality. One reviewer abstracted information from included studies while a second checked content for accuracy.

Results

We identified four "fair" quality studies that met inclusion criteria for our review. Two studies measuring HL found no differences between performance-based and self-reported HL for association with self-reported outcomes (including diabetes, stroke, hypertension) or a physician-completed rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score. However, HL measures were differentially related to a patient-completed health assessment questionnaire and to a patient's ability to interpret their prescription medication name and dose from a medication bottle. Only one study measured numeracy and found no difference between performance-based and self-reported measures of numeracy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. However, in a moderator analysis from the same study, performance-based and self-reported numeracy were differentially related to CRC screening utilization when stratified by certain patient-provider communication behaviors (e.g., the chance to always ask questions and get the support that is needed).

Discussion

Most studies found no difference in the relationship between results of performance-based and self-reported measures and outcomes. However, we identified few studies using multiple instruments and/or objective outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Kiechle ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4579206 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.

Kiechle Eric S ES Bailey Stacy Cooper SC Hedlund Laurie A LA Viera Anthony J AJ Sheridan Stacey L SL

Journal of general internal medicine 20150428 10

<h4>Background</h4>Health literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one's skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. T ...[more]

PMID: 25917656

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-administration of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) by patients with low literacy is a methodologic and implementation challenge. There is an increasing emphasis on patient-centered care and wider adoption of PROMs to understand outcomes and measure healthcare quality. However, there is a risk that the use of PROMs could perpetuate health disparities unless they are implemented in an inclusive fashion. We present a protocol to adapt validated, text-based PROMs to a multimedia format (mPROMs) to optimize self-administration in populations with limited literacy. We describe the processes used to develop the protocol and the planned protocol implementation.Methods/designOur study protocol development was guided by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) protocol for translating and culturally adapting PROMs to different languages. We used the main components of IQOLA's protocol to generate a conceptual framework to guide development of a Multimedia Adaptation Protocol (MAP). The MAP, which incorporates human-centered design (HCD) and takes a community-engaged research approach, includes four stages: forward adaptation, backward adaptation, qualitative evaluation, and validation. The MAP employs qualitative and quantitative methods including observation, cognitive and discovery interviews, ideation workshops, prototyping, user testing, co-creation interviews, and psychometric testing. An iterative design is central to the MAP and consistent with both the IQOLA protocol and HCD processes. We will pilot test and execute the MAP to adapt the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Short Form for use in a mixed literacy hand and upper extremity patient population in Baltimore, Maryland.DiscussionThe MAP provides an approach for adapting PROMs to a multimedia format. We encourage others to evaluate and test this approach with other questionnaires and patient populations. The development and use of mPROMs has the potential to expand our ability to accurately capture PROs in limited literacy populations and promote equity in PRO measurement.

Project description:ObjectivesTo give an overview over the associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in older adults.DesignA systematic literature review of quantitative studies published in English and German.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and LIVIVO were searched.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies had to examine the associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in the elderly (samples including ≥66% of ≥60 years old) and had to use a quantitative methodology and had to be written in English or German.Data extraction and synthesisAll studies were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was applied to analyse all included studies thematically. Quality assessment was conducted using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.ResultsWe found 2313 studies, of which nine publications from eight studies were included in this review. Five studies reported a majority of participants with limited health literacy, one study reported a majority of participants with adequate health literacy, and three publications from two studies only reported mean levels of health literacy. Eight publications from seven studies used self-reports to measure medication adherence, while one study used the medication possession ratio. Overall, six publications from five studies reported significantly positive associations between health literacy and medication adherence while two studies reported positive but non-significant associations between both constructs and one study reported mixed results.ConclusionIn this review, associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence are rather consistent, indicating positive associations between both constructs in older adults. However, concepts and measures of health literacy and medication adherence applied in the included studies still show a noteworthy amount of heterogeneity (eg, different use of cutoffs). These results reveal the need for more differentiated research in this area.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141028.

Project description:Presently, there is no recommendation on how to assess functional status of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This study aimed to summarize and systematically evaluate these measures.Studies on measures of COPD patients' functional status published before the end of January 2015 were included using a search filters in PubMed and Web of Science, screening reference lists of all included studies, and cross-checking against some relevant reviews. After title, abstract, and main text screening, the remaining was appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point checklist. All measures from these studies were rated according to best-evidence synthesis and the best-rated measures were selected.A total of 6447 records were found and 102 studies were reviewed, suggesting 44 performance-based measures and 14 patient-reported measures. The majority of the studies focused on internal consistency, reliability, and hypothesis testing, but only 21% of them employed good or excellent methodology. Their common weaknesses include lack of checks for unidimensionality, inadequate sample sizes, no prior hypotheses, and improper methods. On average, patient-reported measures perform better than performance-based measures. The best-rated patient-reported measures are functional performance inventory (FPI), functional performance inventory short form (FPI-SF), living with COPD questionnaire (LCOPD), COPD activity rating scale (CARS), University of Cincinnati dyspnea questionnaire (UCDQ), shortness of breath with daily activities (SOBDA), and short-form pulmonary functional status scale (PFSS-11), and the best-rated performance-based measures are exercise testing: 6-minute walk test (6MWT), endurance treadmill test, and usual 4-meter gait speed (usual 4MGS).Further research is needed to evaluate the reliability and validity of performance-based measures since present studies failed to provide convincing evidence. FPI, FPI-SF, LCOPD, CARS, UCDQ, SOBDA, PFSS-11, 6MWT, endurance treadmill test, and usual 4MGS performed well and are preferable to assess functional status of COPD patients.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.MethodsCohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.ResultsNineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.ConclusionWhilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.

Project description:Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is present in the early stage of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and is associated with an increased risk of further cognitive decline and AD dementia later in life. Early detection of at-risk groups with subjective complaints is critical for targeted dementia prevention at the earliest. Accurate assessment of SCD is crucial. However, current measures lack important psychometric evaluations and or reporting. Objectives To systematically evaluate measurement properties of self-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess SCD in the older adult population with or at risk of AD. Methods and analysis We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 Checklist for reporting. We conducted a literature search, screened, and included validation studies of SCD based on self-reported questionnaires from both population-based and clinical studies, conducted in older adults (≥ 55). We critically appraised the included primary studies using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies reported psychometric properties of 17 SCD self-reported questionnaires. We extracted data on the structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and cross-cultural validity and found a widespread proneness to bias across studies, and a marked heterogeneity is assessed and reported measurement properties that prevented the consolidation of results. Conclusion Our findings suggest that available SCD questionnaires lack content validity evaluation. Currently available measurements of SCD lack development and validation standards. Further work is needed to develop and validate SCD self-reported measurement with good quality measurement properties. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02018-y.

Dataset Information

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets