Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21951243›Full record

SynthesisJournal of health communication2011

Understanding the internal and external validity of health literacy interventions: a systematic literature review using the RE-AIM framework.

Kacie Allen, Jamie Zoellner, Monica Motley, Paul A Estabrooks

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of health communication, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kacie AllenDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Roanoke, Virginia 24016, USA. kaciea1@vt.edu
Jamie Zoellner
Monica Motley
Paul A Estabrooks
Virginia Tech · US

Funding

Tailored Worksite Weight Control ProgramsR01DK071664 · NIDDK · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI ESTABROOKS, PAUL · 2007 to 2011
$3.1M
Exploring Nutrition Literacy in the Lower Mississippi DeltaR03CA136457 · NCI · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI ZOELLNER, JAMIE · 2008 to 2009
$146k
NCI NIH HHS 1R03CA136457-01A2NCI NIH HHS R03 CA136457NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK071664
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a systematic literature review, using the RE-AIM framework, with the goal of determining what information is available to inform research to practice translation of health promotion interventions developed to address health literacy. Thirty-one articles reflecting 25 trials published between 2000 and 2010 met inclusion criteria. Two researchers coded each article, using a validated RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness/efficacy, adoption, implementation, maintenance) data extraction tool, and group meetings were used to gain consensus on discrepancies. Across all studies (14 randomized controlled trials, 11 quasi-experimental; 24 clinic-based, 1 community-based), the mean level of reporting RE-AIM indicators varied by dimension (reach = 69%; efficacy/ effectiveness = 58%; adoption = 36%; implementation = 35%; maintenance = 11%). Among participants enrolled in the 25 interventions, approximately 38% were identified as low health literate. Only eight of the studies examined health literacy status as a moderator of intervention effectiveness. This review suggests that the current research on health promotion for participants with low health literacy provides insufficient information to conclude whether interventions for health literacy can attract the target population, achieve an effect that is sustainable, or be generalized outside of clinical settings. Recommendations for enhancing the design and reporting of these trials are provided.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyProgram EvaluationEducational StatusHealth PromotionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID21951243
PMCPMC6214368
OpenAlexW2138310923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.