NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 1998-2005.

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries

AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries.

Show details

87Literacy and Health Outcomes: Summary

, , , , , , , , and .

Current as of .

Introduction

Literacy can be defined as "an individual's ability to read, write, and speak in English and compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and in society, to achieve one's goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential."1 Literacy sometimes describes a person's facility with or knowledge about a particular topic (e.g., "computer literacy"). In that context, "health literacy" is a constellation of skills that constitute the ability to perform basic reading and numerical tasks for functioning in the health care environment and acting on health care information.2 Some authors include in this definition a working knowledge of disease processes, self‐efficacy, and motivation for political action regarding health issues.3

Instruments for measuring literacy in the health care setting have focused on the ability to read and, in some cases, to use numbers. Commonly used are the:

  • Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) reading subtest.4
  • Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM).5
  • Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA).6

The WRAT and REALM are word recognition tests validated as instruments of reading ability;they are highly correlated with one another and with other traditional reading assessments.5 The TOFHLA assesses literacy by a modified Cloze method: subjects read passages in which every fifth to seventh word has been deleted and insert the correct word from a choice of four words.6 The TOFHLA also has subjects respond to prompts, such as pill bottle instructions and appointment slips, thus measuring patients' ability to use basic numerical information (numeracy). A short version (S‐TOFHLA) involves only two reading comprehension sections. All of these instruments are highly correlated with one another.

Low literacy is common in the United States; a decade ago, 40 million adult Americans scored on the lowest of five levels (level 1) of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS); another 50 million scored at level 2.7 These levels correspond to having trouble finding pieces of information or numbers in a lengthy text, integrating multiple pieces of information in a document, or finding two or more numbers in a chart and performing a calculation.7 Meeting the requirements of an ever‐increasing percentage of jobs and the many demands of day‐to‐day life requires skill above these NALS levels.8

Low literacy may impair functioning in the health care environment, affect patient‐physician communication dynamics, and inadvertently lead to substandard medical care.2 , 9 It is associated with poor understanding of written or spoken medical advice, adverse health outcomes, and negative effects on the health of the population.6 , 10

Certain groups have an especially high prevalence of low literacy. They include people who completed fewer years of education, persons of certain racial or ethnic groups, the elderly,7 and persons with lower cognitive ability.11 Other factors associated with lower literacy include living in the South or Northeast (rather than the West and Midwest), female sex, incarceration, and income status classified as poor or near poor.

Given that low literacy may affect health and well‐being negatively, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) commissioned an evidence report from the RTI International‐University of North Carolina Evidence‐based Practice Center (RTI‐UNC EPC). Literacy and health are of particular concern to the American Medical Association (AMA), which originally nominated the topic. Our systematic review consolidates and analyzes the body of literature that has been produced to date regarding the relationship between literacy and health outcomes and the evidence about interventions intended to improve the health of people with low literacy.

Methods

We examined two key questions in this review.

  • Key question 1: Are literacy skills related to:
    a.

    Use of health care services?

    b.

    Health outcomes?

    c.

    Costs of health care?

    d.

    Disparities in health outcomes or health care service use according to race, ethnicity, culture, or age?

  • Key question 2: For individuals with low literacy skills, what are effective interventions to:
    a.

    Improve use of health care services?

    b.

    Improve health outcomes?

    c.

    Affect the costs of health care?

    d.

    Improve health outcomes and/or health care service use among different racial, ethnic, cultural, or age groups?

Our inclusion/exclusion criteria limited studies to those with outcomes related to health and health services, studies published from 1980 on, and studies conducted in developed countries (United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe). Study participants included individuals of all ages.

We searched several databases, using terms such as "literacy" and "health literacy" and, in some cases, "numeracy" and the name or accepted acronym for standardized tests of literacy related to health outcomes (e.g., WRAT, REALM, and TOFHLA). For MEDLINE®, our primary database, we had to rely on key word searches because no MeSH® headings specifically identify literacy‐related articles. Other databases included the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL®), the Cochrane Library, the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), the Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), and the Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILRR). We reviewed Web‐based bibliographies and sought inputs from our Technical Expert Advisory Group (TEAG) and external peer reviewers for articles that we may have missed.

Beginning with a yield of 3,015 articles, we retained 684 from a review of titles and abstracts. Following complete review of full articles, we determined that 73 articles were relevant to address our key questions and met our inclusion/exclusion criteria.

We graded the quality of individual articles using an approach based on domains and elements appropriate for intervention and observational studies:12

  • Study population.
  • Intervention.
  • Comparability of subjects.
  • Literacy measurement.
  • Maintenance of comparable groups.
  • Outcome measurement.
  • Statistical analysis.
  • Aappropriate control of confounding.

We also noted funding source (but did not include that information in any numeric score). We also rated the strength of overall evidence, for the two key questions separately, in three domains:

  • Quality of the research.
  • Quantity of studies, including number of studies and adequacy of the sample size.
  • Consistency of findings.12, 13

Results

Key Question 1: Relationship of Literacy to Various Outcomes and Disparities

We identified 44 articles addressing relationships between literacy and use of health care services, health outcomes, costs of health care, and disparities according to race, ethnicity, culture, or age. Study designs, data analysis, and presentation varied widely. The number of participants enrolled ranged from 34 to 3,260. Literacy was most often measured with the REALM (13 studies), TOFHLA or S‐TOFHLA (11), or WRAT (6). Literacy levels used to compare study participants varied widely among studies. Most studies reported the unadjusted (bivariate) relationship between literacy and the outcome of interest; 28 adjusted for at least one covariate, chiefly age and education. The quality of articles reviewed for these key questions was fair to good. The overall strength of evidence ranged from II (studies of strong design but remaining uncertainty because of inconsistencies or concern about generalizability, bias, research design flaws, or adequate sample size, or consistent evidence from studies of weaker design) to III (the number of studies was too limited to rate the strength of the literature).

1a. Health Care Services

Six studies measured the relationship between literacy levels and knowledge of the use of health care services:

  • Mammography.14
  • Cervical cancer screening.15
  • Childhood health maintenance procedures and parental understanding of child diagnosis and medication.16
  • Emergency department discharge instructions.17
  • "Heart Health Knowledge."18
  • Informed consent.19

All but one16 demonstrated a statistically significant association between higher literacy level and knowledge of matters relating to use of these health services.

In two studies that prospectively evaluated the risk of hospitalization according to literacy status, inadequate literacy (relative to adequate literacy) was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization.20, 21 In adjusted analyses, however, another study found no significant relationship between literacy and number of self‐reported health care visits among subjects recruited from emergency rooms and walk‐in clinics.22

Two studies dealt with the relationship between literacy levels and three measures of health promotion and disease prevention interventions (screening for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screening, and immunizations).23, 24 In adjusted analyses, a reading level at or above the ninth grade was associated with a 10‐percent increase in the probability of having a gonorrhea test in the past year.23 Adjusted analyses of cervical and breast cancer screening rates indicated that women with inadequate literacy had significantly greater odds of never having had a Pap smear or no mammogram in the past 2 years.24 An adjusted analysis showed that patients with inadequate literacy had significantly higher odds of not having had either an influenza or a pneumococcal immunization compared to patients with adequate literacy.24

1b. Health Outcomes

Ten studies used knowledge either as one of several outcomes or as the only outcome in regard to several behaviors or conditions:

  • Smoking.25
  • Contraception.26
  • Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).2730
  • Hypertension.31
  • Diabetes.31
  • Asthma.32
  • Postoperative care.33, 34

In general, these studies found a positive, significant relationship between literacy level and participants' knowledge of these health issues.

Three studies evaluated the relationship between literacy and smoking.25 , 35, 36 In adjusted analyses, the largest study (n = 3,019) found a significant relationship between low literacy and various measures of smoking among adolescent boys and girls.36 Low reading ability was significantly associated (unadjusted analyses) with smoking among adults waiting for child‐related services in private and public clinics.35 However, unadjusted rates of smoking among 600 pregnant women did not differ by literacy status.25

Two unadjusted cross‐sectional studies found a positive, significant relationship between higher literacy and likelihood of breast‐feeding.35 , 37 Another study determined, in adjusted analyses, that patients with higher literacy had significantly better metered dose inhaler techniques than those of lower literacy.32

The odds of having misused alcohol were significantly higher among boys but not girls with lower literacy levels.36 Two other studies dealt with child behaviors. In adjusted analyses, youth from low‐income neighborhoods who were more than two grades behind expected reading level (Slosson Oral Reading Test) were more likely than others to carry a weapon including a gun, take a weapon to school, miss school because it was unsafe, and be in a physical fight that required medical treatment.38 Reading ability was an independent predictor of teacher‐reported problem behavior, even after adjustment for early problem behavior and family adversity, and was lower at higher levels of family adversity.39

Four studies evaluated the relationship between literacy and adherence to medical regimens or clinical trial protocols;4043 two found no significant relationship.42, 43 Regarding medication adherence, lower literacy was significantly associated with a greater odds of self‐reported poor adherence among patients taking antiretrovirals for HIV infection.41 A more rigorous study, however, found no relationship.43

Three studies assessed the relationship between literacy and diabetes outcomes.31 , 44, 45 Two found statistically significant associations:

  • Parents' scores on the National Adult Reading Test (NART) were correlated with glycemic control among their children.44
  • In adjusted analyses, lower S‐TOFHLA scores were related to worse glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and reports of retinopathy and cerebrovascular disease.9

Neither of two studies identified an independent relationship between literacy and presence or control of hypertension.31 , 46

One research group reported on the relationship between literacy and control of HIV infection in three cross‐sectional studies (about 60 percent of patients participated in all three studies).27 , 29 , 47 Unadjusted analyses produced mixed results: better reading was associated with greater odds of undetectable viral load in two studies27 , 29 (but not in a third47) and also greater odds of having a CD4 count greater than 300.27

Five studies evaluating the relationship between literacy and self‐reported depression yielded mixed results.18 , 4750 Four found statistically significant associations between lower literacy and higher rates of depression in various patient populations:

  • Persons in a cardiovascular dietary education program.18
  • Mothers.49
  • HIV‐infected patients.47
  • Persons with rheumatoid arthritis.50

Adjusted analyses in the fifth, and largest, study, however, did not show a significant relationship between literacy and depression among Medicare managed care patients.48 Another study found no significant relationship between literacy and "emotional balance" among patients receiving informed consent for a bone marrow transplant.51

Literacy was not associated with functional status among patients with rheumatoid arthritis,50 presence of migraine headaches among children,52 or presentation with late‐stage prostate cancer (in adjusted analyses).53

Four cross‐sectional studies evaluated the relationship between literacy and a global health status measure.10 , 22 , 54, 55 Two found a significant association between lower literacy and worse health status in adjusted analyses of adult patients,22 , 54 and one found a similar association in unadjusted analyses of elderly patients.10

1c. Costs of Health Care

The one study of low literacy and health care costs reported no relationship between literacy and overall or component charges for Medicaid services among patients enrolled largely because of pregnancy rather than medical need or medical indigence.56

1d. Disparities in Health Outcomes or Health Care Service Use

One study directly examined the role of literacy as a mediator of disparities in health outcomes or health care service use.53 In unadjusted analyses of data from a cross‐sectional study of men with prostate cancer, black patients were significantly more likely than white patients to present with late‐stage cancer; after adjusting for literacy, the researchers reported a smaller odds ratio that was no longer statistically significant.

Key Question 2: Interventions for People with Low Literacy

In all, 29 articles described interventions to mitigate the effects of low literacy on health outcomes, using randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and uncontrolled, single‐group "before‐and‐after" studies. The number of participants enrolled ranged from 28 to 1,744. Most studies had between 100 and 500 participants. Of these 29 studies, 19 measured the literacy of each participant: REALM (10 studies), WRAT (4), and various other instruments (5). Criteria to define literacy level categories varied across studies. The remaining 10 studies involved populations known from previous research or clinical assessment to have a large proportion of people with poor literacy skills. We characterized the general quality of these articles as fair. The overall strength of evidence was either III or IV (no study addressed the question).

2a. Health Care Services

The only article addressing question 2a concerned preventive services. In a nonrandomized controlled trial, an intervention consisting of a 12‐minute video, coaching tool, verbal recommendation, and brochure significantly improved mammography utilization at 6 months (but not 24 months) compared with the verbal recommendation and brochure alone.57

2b. Health Outcomes

Most studies addressing health outcomes focused on improvements in knowledge. In most cases, participant knowledge improved after receiving the intervention. In five studies, investigators measured patient literacy and stratified the effect of the intervention by literacy status.

In a controlled trial among patients at a sleep apnea clinic, participants with low literacy appeared to display higher knowledge with a videotape educational tool than with a brochure written at a readability level similar to the videotape's script, but this conclusion is limited by methodological problems with multiple comparisons.58 In another study, women of lower literacy understood illustrated materials about cervical cancer better than text materials.59 In a randomized trial among cancer patients to examine the effect of an interactive videodisc to improve self‐care of cancer fatigue symptoms, patients who received the intervention reported greater self‐care ability, but this effect was not significantly related to the literacy level.60 Another controlled trial compared a locally developed pamphlet about polio vaccine designed for patients with low literacy and a pamphlet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that had also been designed for easy readability;57 patients with lower literacy did not differ in their comprehension of the two pamphlets. Finally, a randomized trial of 1,100 patients compared the effectiveness of educational materials on colorectal cancer screening (videotape or easy‐to‐read brochure intended to be appropriate for people with low literacy) to usual care.61 Patients receiving either intervention had significantly greater improvements in knowledge scores after reviewing the educational materials than did the control group; both low‐ and high‐literacy groups that received either intervention showed significantly improved knowledge between the pre‐ and posttests, but rates of improvement in the two literacy groups did not differ significantly.

Several studies of the effect of interventions on health behaviors produced mixed results. Pregnant smokers and ex‐smokers who received a specially designed intervention with materials written at the third grade reading level were more likely to achieve abstinence during pregnancy and 6 weeks postpartum than those who received standard materials. Effects were greater among current smokers at entry than among ex‐smokers.62 A community‐based osteoarthritis intervention improved exercise behavior in a 6‐week, before‐and‐after uncontrolled trial.63 Medication adherence among patients 65 years and older improved over time when they were given verbal teaching about medication compliance; adding a color‐coded medication schedule did not provide additional benefit.64 Interventions addressing dietary behaviors produced small or no changes.6568

Several studies used changes in biochemical or biometric markers to test the effect of their interventions. Participants in a specially designed workplace hypertension education and behavior change program had modest differences in blood pressure levels compared with those for nonparticipating controls.69 Special cardiovascular nutrition or dietary interventions did not achieve significant differences in postprogram cholesterol levels for low‐literacy patients.67 , 70 Finally, a randomized trial of a special educational intervention for patients with diabetes did not produce significant differences in HbA1c levels or weight loss.71

Few studies examined the effect of interventions on health outcomes that people can actually feel. An uncontrolled before‐and‐after trial found that an osteoarthritis education intervention could improve the functionality of people with osteoarthritis.63 The only study to examine the effect of an intervention that included direct literacy‐skill building demonstrated that a comprehensive family services center, compared with standard Head Start, could improve parental reading skill and reduce the prevalence of paternal depression.72

2c. Costs of Health Care

No study assessed costs, charges, or reimbursements for these types of interventions.

2d. Disparities in Health Outcomes or Health Care Service Use

No study evaluated the effect of literacy‐related interventions in narrowing disparities according to race, ethnicity, culture, or age.

Discussion

General Conclusions

Our review includes material different from that in previous reviews of literature of health literacy. In addition, it excludes important articles because they did not address our two key questions. Earlier reviews reached conclusions similar to ours about the general relationship between literacy and health.2,73 Our rigorous approach should give readers confidence in the conclusion that low reading skill and poor health are clearly related. Conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions to mitigate the effects of low literacy remain less well supported at this time.

Future Research

Use of a wide variety of literacy measures and cutpoints for analysis and a wide range of outcomes made comparisons among studies difficult. Measurement techniques for low‐literacy populations warrant additional development and refinement. Of special importance are investigating whether and how literacy affects self‐report of use of health care or health outcomes and designing questionnaires that are valid and consistent across literacy levels.

One limitation of the knowledge base to date is lack of appropriate specification for analytic models when variables being considered as potential confounders actually mediate the effect of reading ability on important health outcomes. Future research can build on previous work by examining more closely and rigorously the factors that mediate this relationship. For example, investigators could examine whether poor reading ability is really the cause of adverse health outcomes or whether it is a marker for, say, low socioeconomic status, poor self‐efficacy, low trust in medical providers, or impaired access to care. Such information is crucial to designing and testing intervention studies.

Current research is heavily weighted toward studies with limited or no longitudinal component. The predominance of cross‐sectional study designs for studies of literacy and health relationships makes it impossible to measure incident outcomes or assign cause and effect. Thus, more prospective cohort studies that measure changes in outcomes and literacy over time will provide a greater understanding of the relationships among literacy, age, and health outcomes and the extent to which changes in health status actually affect literacy.

Intervention studies have focused mostly on short‐term knowledge outcomes rather than on more meaningful health outcomes. Future studies could link these short‐term knowledge changes to important health outcomes.

Moreover, many interventions involve multiple components, but use of multimodal interventions inhibits understanding of which portions produced positive effects. Analysis that isolates the individual effect of the key components could help determine "how much" intervention is enough to improve health. Documenting the importance of low patient literacy in chronic illness programs and understanding how to mitigate its effects are further important research avenues to foster understanding of how health system changes can positively affect literacy‐related barriers.

Many interventional studies did not stratify outcomes by literacy level. Researchers should take this analytic step so that they can draw appropriate inferences about whether the intervention worked specifically among low‐literacy individuals and helped to ameliorate differences in outcome according to literacy status. Studies could also determine whether measuring or stratifying outcomes by numeracy provides greater predictive ability for health outcomes than measuring and stratifying outcomes by literacy alone.

Investigators should compare interventions directed specifically at reducing literacy‐related barriers with other means of improving health outcomes. Investigators in this field tend to focus on literacy as the variable of interest and, thus, often assume that improved written communication can improve health outcomes. Improving information delivery alone may, however, not mitigate the observed relationship between low literacy and poor health. Addressing self‐efficacy, self‐care, trust, or satisfaction may increase understanding of effective strategies for addressing poor health outcomes.

Provider‐patient communication interventions that go beyond written materials may also prove to be a valuable avenue for future research. Investigations designed to teach physicians to use a "teach‐back" method or other communication styles will aid understanding of whether and how they can improve outcomes.

Poor descriptions of interventions and lack of reporting how health outcomes were assessed, particularly whether questionnaires were presented in ways that would allow accurate responses by participants with limited literacy, hampered synthesis of this literature. Another drawback to the current literature is lack of use (or at least incomplete reporting) of appropriate statistical measures (e.g., use of P values without measures of magnitude or confidence intervals), which made it difficult to determine if null findings represent true lack of effect or limitations in power. Thus, reporting of study interventions, statistics, and results should be improved.

Finally, both the concept of health literacy and its role in health care use and health outcomes need further evaluation. The current literature focuses on reading ability and health; taking a patient‐centered approach that addresses challenges in navigating the health care system and providing self‐care may enrich understanding of health literacy and ultimately how to measure and improve it.

Availability of Full Report

The full evidence report from which this summary was taken was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) by the RTI International—University of North Carolina Evidence‐based Practice Center, under Contract No. 290‐02‐0016. Printed copies may be obtained free of charge from the AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse by calling 800‐358‐9295. Requesters should ask for Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 87, Literacy and Health Outcomes.

The Evidence Report can also be downloaded as a set of PDF files online at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/evrptpdfs.htm#literacy or as a zipped file at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/evrptfiles.htm#literacy.

AHRQ Publication Number 04‐E007‐1

Current as of January 2004

Internet Citation:

Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Literacy and Health Outcomes. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 87. AHRQ Publication Number 04‐E007‐1, January 2004. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/litsum.htm

References

1.
National Literacy Act of 1991. Pub. L. No. 102‐73, 105 Stat. 333: (1991).
2.
American Medical Association. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs JAMA 1999. 281552–7. [PubMed: 10022112]
3.
Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Intl. 2000;15:259–67.
4.
Wide Range Inc. Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT 3). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range Inc., 1993.
5.
Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH. et al. Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med. 1993;25:391–5. [PubMed: 8349060]
6.
Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV. et al. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:537–41. [PubMed: 8576769]
7.
Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, et al. Adult Literacy in America: A first look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey. 3rd edition. Vol. 201. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education, U.S. Department of Education, 2002.
8.
Comings J, Reder S, Sum A. Building a Level Playing Field: The need to expand and improve the national and state adult education and literacy systems. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy; 2001.
9.
Schillinger D, Piette J, Grumbach K. et al. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Int Med. 2003;163(1):83–90. [PubMed: 12523921]
10.
Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV. et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA. 1999;281(6):545–51. [PubMed: 10022111]
11.
Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Sudano J. et al. The association between age and health literacy among elderly persons. J Gerontol Series B‐Psychol Scien Soc Scien. 2000;55(6):S368–74. [PubMed: 11078114]
12.
West SL, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report, Technology Assessment No. 47. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2002. AHRQ Publication No. 02‐E016.
13.
Greer N, Mosser G, Logan G. et al. A practical approach to evidence grading. Joint Commission J Qual Improv. 2000;26(12):700–12. [PubMed: 11143209]
14.
Davis TC, Arnold C, Berkel HJ. et al. Knowledge and attitude on screening mammography among low‐literate, low‐income women. Cancer. 1996;78(9):1912–20. [PubMed: 8909311]
15.
Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T. et al. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5):938–43. [PubMed: 12015518]
16.
Moon RY, Cheng TL, Patel KM. et al. Parental literacy level and understanding of medical information. Pediatrics. 1998;102(2):e25. [PubMed: 9685471]
17.
Spandorfer JM, Karras DJ, Hughes LA. et al. Comprehension of discharge instructions by patients in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;25(1):71–4. [PubMed: 7802373]
18.
TenHave TR, Van Horn B, Kumanyika S. et al. Literacy assessment in a cardiovascular nutrition education setting. Patient Educat Counsel. 1997;31(2):139–50. [PubMed: 9216355]
19.
Miller CK, O'Donnell DC, Searight HR. et al. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16(5):872–8. [PubMed: 8888082]
20.
Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV. et al. Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(12):791–8. [PMC free article: PMC1497036] [PubMed: 9844076]
21.
Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV. et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Pub Health. 2002;92(8):1278–83. [PMC free article: PMC1447230] [PubMed: 12144984]
22.
Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV. et al. The relationship of patient reading ability to self‐reported health and use of health services. Am J Pub Health. 1997;87(6):1027–30. [PMC free article: PMC1380944] [PubMed: 9224190]
23.
Fortenberry JD, McFarlane MM, Hennessy M. et al. Relation of health literacy to gonorrhoea related care. Sex Trans Infect. 2001;77(3):206–11. [PMC free article: PMC1744316] [PubMed: 11402232]
24.
Scott TL, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV. et al. Health literacy and preventive health care use among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Med Care. 2002;40(5):395–404. [PubMed: 11961474]
25.
Arnold CL, Davis TC, Berkel HJ. et al. Smoking status, reading level, and knowledge of tobacco effects among low‐income pregnant women. Prevent Med. 2001;32(4):313–20. [PubMed: 11304092]
26.
Gazmararian JA, Parker RM, Baker DW. Reading skills and family planning knowledge and practices in a low‐income managed‐care population. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(2):239–44. [PubMed: 9932563]
27.
Kalichman SC, Rompa D. Functional health literacy is associated with health status and health‐related knowledge in people living with HIV‐AIDS. J Acq Immune Def Synd Hum Retrovirol. 2000;25(4):337–44. [PubMed: 11114834]
28.
Kalichman SC, Rompa D, Cage M. Reliability and validity of self‐reported CD4 lymphocyte count and viral load test results in people living with HIV/AIDS. Int J STD & AIDS. 2000;11(9):579–85. [PubMed: 10997499]
29.
Kalichman SC, Benotsch E, Suarez T. et al. Health literacy and health‐related knowledge among persons living with HIV/AIDS. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(4):325–31. [PubMed: 10788736]
30.
Miller LG, Liu H, Hays RD. et al. Knowledge of antiretroviral regimen dosing and adherence: a longitudinal study. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(4):514–8. [PubMed: 12567311]
31.
Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM. et al. Relationship of functional health literacy to patients' knowledge of their chronic disease. A study of patients with hypertension and diabetes. Arch Int Med. 1998;158(2):166–72. [PubMed: 9448555]
32.
Williams MV, Baker DW, Honig EG. et al. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self‐care. Chest. 1998;114(4):1008–15. [PubMed: 9792569]
33.
Conlin KK, Schumann L. Research. Literacy in the health care system: a study on open heart surgery patients. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2002;14(1):38–42. [PubMed: 11845640]
34.
Wilson FL, McLemore R. Patient literacy levels: a consideration when designing patient education programs. Rehab Nursing. 1997;22(6):311–7. [PubMed: 9416192]
35.
Fredrickson DD, Washington RL, Pham N. et al. Reading grade levels and health behaviors of parents at child clinics. Kansas Med. 1995;96(3):127–9. [PubMed: 8583738]
36.
Hawthorne G. Preteenage drug use in Australia: the key predictors and school‐based drug education. J Adolesc Health. 1996;20(5):384–95. [PubMed: 9168386]
37.
Kaufman H, Skipper B, Small L. et al. Effect of literacy on breast‐feeding outcomes. South Med J. 2001;94(3):293–6. [PubMed: 11284516]
38.
Davis TC, Byrd RS, Arnold CL. et al. Low literacy and violence among adolescents in a summer sports program. J Adolesc Health. 1999;24(6):403–11. [PubMed: 10401968]
39.
Stanton WR, Feehan M, McGee R. et al. The relative value of reading ability and IQ as predictors of teacher‐reported behavior problems. J Learn Disabil. 1990;23(8):514–7. [PubMed: 2246604]
40.
Frack SA, Woodruff SI, Candelaria J. et al. Correlates of compliance with measurement protocols in a Latino nutrition‐intervention study. Am J Prev Med. 1997;13(2):131–6. [PubMed: 9088450]
41.
Kalichman SC, Ramachandran B, Catz S. Adherence to combination antiretroviral therapies in HIV patients of low health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(5):267–73. [PMC free article: PMC1496573] [PubMed: 10337035]
42.
Li B, Brown W, Ampil F. et al. Patient compliance is critical for equivalent clinical outcomes for breast cancer treated by breast‐conservation therapy. Ann Surg. 2000;231(6):883–9. [PMC free article: PMC1421078] [PubMed: 10816632]
43.
Golin CE, Liu H, Hays RD. et al. A prospective study of predictors of adherence to combination antiretroviral medication. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(10):756–65. [PMC free article: PMC1495120] [PubMed: 12390551]
44.
Ross LA, Frier BM, Kelnar CJ. et al. Child and parental mental ability and glycaemic control in children with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Med. 2001;18(5):364–9. [PubMed: 11472446]
45.
Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J. et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):475–82. [PubMed: 12132978]
46.
Battersby C, Hartley K, Fletcher AE. et al. Cognitive function in hypertension: a community based study. J Hum Hyperten. 1993;7(2):117–23. [PubMed: 8510083]
47.
Kalichman SC, Rompa D. Emotional reactions to health status changes and emotional well‐being among HIV‐positive persons with limited reading literacy. J Clin Psychol Med Set. 2000;7(4):203–11.
48.
Gazmararian J, Baker D, Parker R. et al. A multivariate analysis of factors associated with depression: evaluating the role of health literacy as a potential contributor. Arch Int Med. 2000;160(21):3307–14. [PubMed: 11088094]
49.
Zaslow MJ, Hair EC, Dion MR. et al. Maternal depressive symptoms and low literacy as potential barriers to employment in a sample of families receiving welfare: are there two‐generational implications? Womens Health. 2001;32(3):211–51. [PubMed: 11480894]
50.
Gordon MM, Hampson R, Capell HA. et al. Illiteracy in rheumatoid arthritis patients as determined by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) score. Rheumatol. 2002;41(7):750–4. [PubMed: 12096223]
51.
Fisch M, Unverzagt F, Hanna M. et al. Information preferences, reading ability, and emotional changes in outpatients during the process of obtaining informed consent for autologous bone‐marrow transplantation. J Cancer Ed. 1998;13(2):71–5. [PubMed: 9659624]
52.
Andrasik F, Kabela E, Quinn S. et al. Psychological functioning of children who have recurrent migraine. Pain. 1988;34(1):43–52. [PubMed: 3405619]
53.
Bennett CL, Ferreira MR, Davis TC. et al. Relation between literacy, race, and stage of presentation among low‐income patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(9):3101–4. [PubMed: 9738581]
54.
Weiss BD, Hart G, McGee DL. et al. Health status of illiterate adults: relation between literacy and health status among persons with low literacy skills. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1992;5(3):257–64. [PubMed: 1580173]
55.
Sullivan LM, Dukes KA, Harris L, et al. A comparison of various methods of collecting self‐reported health outcomes data among low‐income and minority patients. Med Care 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS183‐94. [PubMed: 7723446]
56.
Weiss BD, Blanchard JS, McGee DL. et al. Illiteracy among Medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1994;5(2):99–111. [PubMed: 8043732]
57.
Davis TC, Fredrickson DD, Arnold C. et al. A polio immunization pamphlet with increased appeal and simplified language does not improve comprehension to an acceptable level. Patient Educat Counsel. 1998;33(1):25–37. [PubMed: 9481346]
58.
Murphy PW, Chesson AL, Walker L. et al. Comparing the effectiveness of video and written material for improving knowledge among sleep disorders clinic patients with limited literacy skills. Southern Med J. 2000;93(3):297–304. [PubMed: 10728518]
59.
Michielutte R, Bahnson J, Dignan MB. et al. The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. J Cancer Ed. 1992;7(3):251–60. [PubMed: 1419592]
60.
Wydra EW. The effectiveness of a self‐care management interactive multimedia module. Oncol Nursing Forum. 2001;28(9):1399–407. [PubMed: 11683310]
61.
Meade CD, McKinney WP, Barnas GP. Educating patients with limited literacy skills: the effectiveness of printed and videotaped materials about colon cancer. Am J Pub Health. 1994;84(1):119–21. [PMC free article: PMC1614927] [PubMed: 8279598]
62.
Lillington L, Royce J, Novak D. et al. Evaluation of a smoking cessation program for pregnant minority women. Cancer Pract. 1995;3(3):157–63. [PubMed: 7599672]
63.
Bill‐Harvey D, Rippey R, Abeles M. et al. Outcome of an osteoarthritis education program for low‐literacy patients taught by indigenous instructors. Patient Educat Counsel. 1989;13(2):133–42. [PubMed: 10292285]
64.
Hussey LC. Minimizing effects of low literacy on medication knowledge and compliance among the elderly. Clin Nurs Res. 1994;3(2):132–45. [PubMed: 7513587]
65.
Howard‐Pitney B, Winkleby MA, Albright CL. et al. The Stanford Nutrition Action Program: a dietary fat intervention for low‐literacy adults. Am J Pub Health. 1997;87(12):1971–6. [PMC free article: PMC1381239] [PubMed: 9431286]
66.
Gans KM, Lovell HJ, Fortunet R. et al. Gem no. 289. Low‐literacy audio intervention for lowering fat intake. J Nutr Ed. 1998;30(6):410B.
67.
Hartman TJ, McCarthy PR, Park RJ. et al. Results of a community‐based low‐literacy nutrition education program. J Comm Health. 1997;22(5):325–41. [PubMed: 9353681]
68.
Murphy PW, Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ. et al. Teaching nutrition education in adult learning centers: linking literacy, health care, and the community. J Comm Health Nurs. 1996;13(3):149–58. [PubMed: 8916604]
69.
Fouad MN, Kiefe CI, Bartolucci AA. et al. A hypertension control program tailored to unskilled and minority workers. Ethnicit Dis. 1997;7(3):191–9. [PubMed: 9467701]
70.
Kumanyika SK, Adams‐Campbell L, Van Horn B. et al. Outcomes of a cardiovascular nutrition counseling program in African‐Americans with elevated blood pressure or cholesterol level. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999;99(11):1380–91. [PubMed: 10570675]
71.
Mulrow C, Bailey S, Sonksen PH. et al. Evaluation of an audiovisual diabetes education program: negative results of a randomized trial of patients with non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 1987;2(4):215–9. [PubMed: 2441013]
72.
Poresky RH, Daniels AM. Two‐year comparison of income, education, and depression among parents participating in regular Head Start or supplementary Family Service Center Services. Psychol Reports. 2001;88(3 Pt 1):787–96. [PubMed: 11508020]
73.
Rudd RE, Moeykens BA, Colton TC. Health and literacy: a review of medical and public health literature. In: Comins J, Garners B, Smith C, editors. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. New York: Jossey‐Bass; 1999.

AHRQ Publication Number 04-E007-1

PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to pubmed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...