Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29276627›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2017

Patient and public involvement in health literacy interventions: a mapping review.

Stephanie Howard Wilsher, Julii Brainard, Yoon Loke, Charlotte Salter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures used following hip or knee arthroplasty: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Patient public involvement (PPI) in health literacy research: Engagement of adults with literacy needs in the co-creation of a hospital-based health literacy plan.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Stephanie Howard WilsherNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3060-3270
Julii BrainardNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK.
Yoon LokeNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK.
Charlotte SalterNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-1207-15244
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryIf people can read, understand and act on health information to better their health and reduce illness, they are thought to have "adequate" health literacy. Poor health literacy can mean people are less able to access health care and manage their health. Health literacy tends to worsen as adults get older, and is especially poor in adults age 65 and over. Ideally, health literacy interventions target people before age 65, to establish good skills and habits before people have many health problems associated with ageing. It is also good if researchers consult ordinary people, including patients and the public (PPI) when planning a programme to try to improve health literacy. This may help ensure individual needs are catered for.We therefore looked for studies that described any role of patient or public representatives in the research planning stages. We explored how the representatives contributed to each project. We found only 20 studies that included people other than the research team. Lack of reporting and consultation with patient and public representatives may contribute to less success when public health programmes are undertaken. ABSTRACT:

backgroundHealth literacy is the ability to understand, access and use health care and is a critical mediating factor that affects the health of older adults. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research, policy and design of care delivery is one mechanism that can promote production of better health literacy. This mapping review looks for and describes practices, concepts and methods that have been reported involving patients and public in the development and design of health literacy interventions for older people.

methodsStudies for the present review were selected from an inventory of health behaviour studies published between 2003 and 2013. The inventory was created by systematic searches on bibliographic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Google) for health literacy interventions involving older people (50+ years) and resulted in screening of 5561 articles, of which 1097 met study inclusion criteria. For the research described in this article 96 of the 1097 studies specifically focused on health literacy and were independently screened by two reviewers to assess involvement of stakeholders other than investigators and participants.

resultsTwenty studies included patient and/or public involvement in at least one research domain: design, management or evaluation. Involvement included volunteers, older people, patients, and/or community representatives.

conclusionsPatient and public involvement were rarely reported in studies on health literacy interventions for older people. Future intervention development needs high quality PPI, which is well reported to develop the evidence base and inform practice.

Indexed as

Health literacy intervention researchMapping reviewOlder peoplePatient and public involvement

Identifiers

PMID29276627
PMCPMC5738234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.