Dataset Information

The Vienna self-assessment questionnaire: a usable tool towards more health-literate hospitals? Explorative case studies in three hospitals in Belgium.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Strengthening the capacity of hospitals to take into account the level of health literacy of their public is a necessity to improve the quality of care. One way to develop adequate health literacy responsive policy and strategies in hospitals is the use of self-assessment tools to raise awareness, help prioritise action and mobilise stakeholders. The Vienna Health Literate Organisation (V-HLO) questionnaire, recently translated and adapted into French, is designed to meet this objective. In this study we have piloted the French version of the V-HLO (V-HLO-fr) tool in the main hospitals of Liège (Belgium) to explore its feasibility and gain a first insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the health literacy responsiveness of the participating hospitals.

Methods

We performed explorative case studies in three hospitals. Our mode of application of the V-HLO-fr was inspired by the 'RAND Appropriateness' method: first, individual members of an internal multidisciplinary panel filled out the questionnaire and then the results were discussed collectively in each hospital during a 'round table' meeting. The feasibility of the process was assessed by direct observation of the round tables and with semi-structured phone interviews.

Results

The V-HLO-fr tool was fully applied in the three targeted hospitals and the process seems to be acceptable, practicable and integrable. Strengths (e.g. the facilitation of patient navigation to the hospital) and weaknesses (e.g. the provision of easy to read, understand and act on health information materials) in terms of health literacy responsiveness have been highlighted.

Conclusion

V-HLO-fr can be a suitable tool for a needs assessment that allows hospitals to create awareness and formulate targeted actions to further strengthen their health literacy responsiveness. Its mode of application, formalised by taking inspiration from the RAND method, could be further improved by paying more attention to recruiting and supporting participants. The V-HLO-fr and its added value in real-world projects should now be further tested in a larger number of hospitals.

SUBMITTER: Henrard G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8011166 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of e-health can lead to several positive outcomes. However, the potential for e-health to improve healthcare is partially dependent on its ease of use. In order to determine the usability for any technology, rigorously developed and appropriate measures must be chosen.ObjectivesTo identify psychometrically tested questionnaires that measure usability of e-health tools, and to appraise their generalizability, attributes coverage, and quality.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies that measured usability of e-health tools using four databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and HAPI). Non-primary research, studies that did not report measures, studies with children or people with cognitive limitations, and studies about assistive devices or medical equipment were systematically excluded. Two authors independently extracted information including: questionnaire name, number of questions, scoring method, item generation, and psychometrics using a data extraction tool with pre-established categories and a quality appraisal scoring table.ResultsUsing a broad search strategy, 5,558 potentially relevant papers were identified. After removing duplicates and applying exclusion criteria, 35 articles remained that used 15 unique questionnaires. From the 15 questionnaires, only 5 were general enough to be used across studies. Usability attributes covered by the questionnaires were: learnability (15), efficiency (12), and satisfaction (11). Memorability (1) was the least covered attribute. Quality appraisal showed that face/content (14) and construct (7) validity were the most frequent types of validity assessed. All questionnaires reported reliability measurement. Some questionnaires scored low in the quality appraisal for the following reasons: limited validity testing (7), small sample size (3), no reporting of user centeredness (9) or feasibility estimates of time, effort, and expense (7).ConclusionsExisting questionnaires provide a foundation for research on e-health usability. However, future research is needed to broaden the coverage of the usability attributes and psychometric properties of the available questionnaires.

Project description:Health literacy (HL) is defined as necessary competencies to make well-informed decisions. As patients' decision making is a key element of patient-centered health care, insight in patients' HL might help healthcare professionals to organize their care accordingly. This is particularly true for people in a vulnerable situation, potentially with limited HL, who are, for instance, at greater risk of having limited access to care [1, 2]. As HL correlates with education, instruments should allow inclusion of low literate people. To that end, the relatively new instrument, HLS-EU-Q47, was subjected to a comprehensibility test, its shorter version, HLS-EU-Q16, was not. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine feasibility of HLS-EU-Q16 (in Dutch) for use in a population of people with low literacy.Purposive sampling of adults with low (yearly) income (< €16,965.47) and limited education (maximum high school), with Dutch language proficiency. Exclusion criteria were: psychiatric, neurodegenerative diseases or impairments. To determine suitability (length, comprehension and layout) participants were randomly distributed either HLS-EU-Q16 or a modified version and were interviewed directly afterwards by one researcher. To determine feasibility a qualitative approach was chosen: cognitive interviews were carried out using the verbal probing technique.Thirteen participants completed HLS-EU-Q16 (n = 7) or the modified version (n = 6). Questions about 'disease prevention' or 'appraisal' of information are frequently reported to be incomprehensible. Difficulties are attributed to vocabulary, sentence structure and the decision process (abstraction, distinguishing 'appraising' from 'applying' information, indecisive on the appropriate response).HLS-EU-Q16 is a suitable instrument to determine HL in people with limited literacy. However, to facilitate the use and interpretation, some questions would benefit from minor adjustments: by simplifying wording or providing explanatory, contextual information.

Project description:BackgroundAs the number of people living with chronic illnesses increases, providing wide-reaching and easy-to-use support tools is becoming increasingly important. Supporting people in this group to recognize and use more of their personal strengths has the potential to improve their quality of life. With this in mind, we have developed the MyStrengths app prototype, a gamefully designed app aimed at aiding users in both identifying their strengths and using these strengths more actively in their daily life.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate the user-reported feasibility and usefulness of the MyStrengths app. The study additionally aimed to explore whether the use of MyStrengths could be associated with selected psychosocial outcomes.MethodsA 31-day explorative feasibility trial with a pretest-posttest design and an optional end of study interview was conducted. Data collection included system-use log data, demographic information, pre- and post-psychosocial measures (ie, strengths use, self-efficacy, health-related quality of life, depression), user experience measures (ie, usability, engagement, flow), and interview data.ResultsIn total, 34 people with at least 1 chronic condition were enrolled in the study, with 26 participants (mean age 48 years, range 29-62 years; 1 male) completing the trial. Among these individuals, 18 were also interviewed posttrial. Participants used the MyStrengths app an average of 6 days during the trial period, with 54% (14/26) using the app over a period of at least 19 days. In total, 8738 unique app actions were registered. Of the psychosocial outcome measures, only 1 subscale, general health in the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, yielded significant pre- and posttest changes. Posttrial interviews showed that the number of participants who considered the MyStrengths app to be useful, somewhat useful, or not useful was evenly distributed across 3 groups. However, every participant did voice support for the strengths approach. All participants were able to identify a multitude of personal strengths using the MyStrengths app. Most participants that reported it to be useful had little or no previous experience with the personal strengths approach. A multitude of users welcomed the gameful design choices, particularly the rolling die feature, suggesting strengths exercises, activities that use a specific strength, were well received.ConclusionsAlthough the reported usefulness and feedback from use varied, most participants were favorable to the strengths-focused approach to care and support. Consequently, low-threshold and wide-reaching mobile health tools that use a strengths-focused approach, such as MyStrengths, hold the potential to support people living with chronic illness in performing self-management and achieving mastery of their life.