Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27173641›Full record

ArticleHealth education research2016

The impact of health literacy on rural adults' satisfaction with a multi-component intervention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage intake.

A N Bailey, K J Porter, J L Hill, Y Chen, P A Estabrooks, J M Zoellner

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health education research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Implementation of a Routine Health Literacy Assessment at an Academic Medical Center.Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality
    Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A N BaileyDepartment of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA angela11@vt.edu.
K J PorterDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
J L HillDepartment of Health Promotion, Social & Behavioral Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198, USA.
Y ChenSchool of Journalism, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.
P A EstabrooksDepartment of Health Promotion, Social & Behavioral Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198, USA.
J M ZoellnerDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, 1981 Kraft Drive (0913), ILSB 23, Rm 1031, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.
University of Nebraska Medical Center · USVirginia Tech · USRowan University · USUniversity of Kansas · US

Funding

SIPsmartER: A nutrition literacy approach to reducing sugar-sweetened beveragesR01CA154364 · NCI · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI ZOELLNER, JAMIE · 2011 to 2015
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154364
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SIPsmartER is a 6-month behavioral intervention designed using a health literacy universal precautions approach that has been found effective at reducing sugary beverage intake in rural, low socioeconomic adults. The purpose of this mixed-methods study is to determine if health literacy status influenced participants' satisfaction and perceptions of each intervention component: small group classes, interactive-voice response (IVR) calls, personal action plans and self-monitoring logs. Of the 155 participants enrolled in SIPsmartER, 105 (68%) completed an interview-administered summative evaluation including 68 high and 37 low health literate participants. The quantitative findings show participant satisfaction with each intervention component was high (i.e. classes = 9.6, IVR calls = 8.1, action plans = 8.9-9.1, logs = 8.7 on a 10-point scale) and similar across both health literacy groups. The majority of qualitative responses were positive (81.8%) and code counts were comparable between literacy groups with a few exceptions. As compared with high health literacy respondents, low health literacy respondents more frequently mentioned liking the content and length of IVR calls, liking the motivational aspects of the personal action plans, and identified numeracy issues with the self-monitoring logs. Overall, applying a health literacy universal precautions approach is an effective and acceptable strategy for both high and low health literacy groups.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyPatient SatisfactionRural PopulationAdultCarbonated BeveragesFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInterviews as TopicMaleVirginia

Identifiers

PMID27173641
PMCPMC4945856
OpenAlexW2386276137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.