Dataset Information

Health Literacy and Outcomes Among Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine if health literacy is associated with mortality, hospitalizations, or emergency department (ED) visits among patients living with heart failure (HF).

Background

Growing evidence suggests an association between health literacy and health-related outcomes in patients with HF.

Methods

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EBSCO CINAHL from inception through January 1, 2019, with the help of a medical librarian. Eligible studies evaluated health literacy among patients with HF and assessed mortality, hospitalizations, and ED visits for all causes with no exclusion by time, geography, or language. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the identified studies.

Results

We included 15 studies, 11 with an overall high methodological quality. Among the observational studies, an average of 24% of patients had inadequate or marginal health literacy. Inadequate health literacy was associated with higher unadjusted risk for mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18 to 2.36), hospitalizations (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.29), and ED visits (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.32). When the adjusted measurements were combined, inadequate health literacy remained statistically associated with mortality (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.88) and hospitalizations (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.25). Among the 4 interventional studies, 2 effectively improved outcomes among patients with inadequate health literacy.

Conclusions

In this study, the estimated prevalence of inadequate health literacy was high, and inadequate health literacy was associated with increased risk of death and hospitalizations. These findings have important clinical and public health implications and warrant measurement of health literacy and deployment of interventions to improve outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Fabbri M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7263350 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of statins in patients with heart failure (HF) of different levels of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains unclear especially in the light of the absence of prospective data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in non-ischemic HF, and taking into account potential statins' prosarcopenic effects. We assessed the association of statin use with clinical outcomes in patients with HF. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central until August 2018 for RCTs and prospective cohorts comparing clinical outcomes with statin vs non-statin use in patients with HF at different LVEF levels. We followed the guidelines of the 2009 PRISMA statement for reporting and applied independent extraction by multiple observers. Meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) of effects of statins on clinical outcomes used generic inverse variance method and random model effects. Clinical outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality and CV hospitalization. RESULTS:Finally we included 17 studies (n?=?88,100; 2 RCTs and 15 cohorts) comparing statin vs non-statin users (mean follow-up 36?months). Compared with non-statin use, statin use was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.83, P?<?0.0001, I2 =?63%), CV mortality (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.76-0.88, P?<?0.0001, I2 =?63%), and CV hospitalization (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69-0.89, P?=?0.0003, I2 =?36%). All-cause mortality was reduced on statin therapy in HF with both EF?<?40% and???40% (HR: 0.77, 95% Cl: 0.68-0.86, P?<?0.00001, and HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.69-0.82, P?<?0.00001, respectively). Similarly, CV mortality (HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.93, P?=?0.0003, and HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.90, P?<?0.00001, respectively), and CV hospitalizations (HR 0.80 95% CI: 0.64-0.99, P?=?0.04 and HR 0.76 95% CI: 0.61-0.93, P?=?0.009, respectively) were reduced in these EF subgroups. Significant effects on all clinical outcomes were also found in cohort studies' analyses; the effect was also larger and significant for lipophilic than hydrophilic statins. CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, statins may have a beneficial effect on CV outcomes irrespective of HF etiology and LVEF level. Lipophilic statins seem to be much more favorable for patients with heart failure.

Project description:BackgroundLow serum magnesium (Mg) has been independently shown to increase risk of heart failure (HF), but data on the association between serum Mg concentration and the outcome of patients with HF are conflicting. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the prognostic effects of hypermagnesemia and hypomagnesemia on cardiovascular (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality (ACM) of patients with HF.MethodsRelevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus databases. Included and excluded criteria were defined. Effects (i.e., log [risk ratio [RR]]) of hypomagnesemia and hypermagnesemia versus normomagnesemia were estimated using Poisson regression, and then a multivariate meta-analysis was applied for pooling RRs across studies. Heterogeneity was explored using a meta-regression and subgroup analysis.ResultsOn analysis, 7 eligible prospective studies yielded a total of 5172 chronic HF patients with 913 and 1438 deaths from CV and ACM, respectively. Most participants were elderly men with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ?40%. Those patients with baseline hypermagnesemia had a significantly higher risk of CV mortality (RR, 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.78) or ACM (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.54) than those with baseline normomagnesemia. However, baseline hypomagnesemia was not associated with the risk of CV mortality (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.79-1.57) and ACM (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87-1.41). A subgroup analysis by Mg cutoff suggested a dose-response trend for hypermagnesemia effects, that is, the pooled RRs for CV mortality were 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05-1.55) and 1.92 (95% CI, 1.00-3.68) for the cutoff of 0.89 to 1.00 and 1.05 to 1.70?mmol/L, respectively.ConclusionThe present systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that, in HF patients, hypermagnesemia with serum Mg???1.05?mmol/L was associated with an increased risk of CV mortality and ACM but this was not observed for hypomagnesemia. This finding was limited to the elderly patients with chronic HF who had reduced LV systolic function.

Project description:AimsSarcopenia has been found to be frequently associated with co-morbidity among patients with heart failure (HF). However, there remain insufficient data to accurately estimate the global prevalence of sarcopenia in HF. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the current overall prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with HF.Methods and resultsWe searched relevant databases for studies published up to 13 July 2020, assessing sarcopenia in vpatients with HF. After careful screening, data of included articles were extracted with a predesigned Excel form. Then the pooled prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with HF was calculated using the random-effects model. The Q test was used to assess the heterogeneity, and I2 statistic was calculated to quantify and evaluate the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine potential sources of heterogeneity. A total of 2852 articles were initially identified, and after removing duplicate publications and applying the selection criteria, we reviewed 79 full-text articles. Finally, 11 articles (n = 1742 patients with HF) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with HF was 34% [95% confidence interval (CI): 22-47%, I2 = 96.59%] and ranged from 10% to 69%. However, substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 96.59%, P < 0.001) was observed. There was no significant heterogeneity between subgroups by sex (P = 0.803) or the method used to define sarcopenia (P = 0.307). While the heterogeneity between subgroups by population setting was statistically significant (P < 0.001), the pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was 55% (95% CI: 43-66%) for hospitalized patients with HF and 26% (95% CI: 16-37%) for ambulatory patients.ConclusionsSarcopenia was a common condition in patients with HF, and the prevalence of hospitalized patients was higher than for ambulatory patients. Early detection of sarcopenia was therefore important in patients with HF, and it was important to implement interventions so that physical therapists or managerial dieticians can easily be introduced into clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundLow health literacy is considered a potential barrier to improving health outcomes in people with diabetes and other chronic conditions, although the evidence has not been previously systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo identify, appraise, and synthesize research evidence on the relationships between health literacy (functional, interactive, and critical) or numeracy and health outcomes (i.e., knowledge, behavioral and clinical) in people with diabetes.MethodsEnglish-language articles that addressed the relationship between health literacy or numeracy and at least one health outcome in people with diabetes were identified by two reviewers through searching six scientific databases, and hand-searching journals and reference lists.FindingsSeven hundred twenty-three citations were identified and screened, 196 were considered, and 34 publications reporting data from 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Consistent and sufficient evidence showed a positive association between health literacy and diabetes knowledge (eight studies). There was a lack of consistent evidence on the relationship between health literacy or numeracy and clinical outcomes, e.g., A1C (13 studies), self-reported complications (two studies), and achievement of clinical goals (one study); behavioral outcomes, e.g., self-monitoring of blood glucose (one study), self-efficacy (five studies); or patient-provider interactions (i.e., patient-physician communication, information exchange, decision-making, and trust), and other outcomes. The majority of the studies were from US primary care setting (87.5 %), and there were no randomized or other trials to improve health literacy.ConclusionsLow health literacy is consistently associated with poorer diabetes knowledge. However, there is little sufficient or consistent evidence suggesting that it is independently associated with processes or outcomes of diabetes-related care. Based on these findings, it may be premature to routinely screen for low health literacy as a means for improving diabetes-related health-related outcomes.