Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29471836›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Differences in health literacy profiles of patients admitted to a public and a private hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

Rebecca L Jessup, Richard H Osborne, Alison Beauchamp, Allison Bourne, Rachelle Buchbinder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) and the pandemic: Predictors of patient activation among Australian health consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Understanding Health Literacy among University Health Science Students of Different Nationalities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Rebecca L JessupHealth Systems Improvement Unit, Centre of Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. rjessup@deakin.edu.au.
Richard H OsborneHealth Systems Improvement Unit, Centre of Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Alison BeauchampHealth Systems Improvement Unit, Centre of Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Allison BourneMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Rachelle BuchbinderMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Cabrini Institute n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth literacy refers to an individual's ability to find, understand and use health information in order to promote and maintain health. An individual's health literacy may also be influenced by the way health care organisations deliver care. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of hospital service type (public versus private) on individual health literacy.

methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys were conducted using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), a multi-dimensional self-report instrument covering nine health literacy domains. Recently discharged private patients (n = 3121) were sent the survey in English, public patients (n = 384) were sent the survey in English, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian or Greek. Eligibility included hospitalisation ≥24 h in last 30 days, aged ≥18 years, no cognitive impairment. Odds ratios were used to assess differences between hospital sociodemographic and health related variables. ANOVA and Cohen's effect sizes compared HLQ scores between hospitals. Chi square and multiple logistic regression were used to determine whether differences between private and public hospital HLQ scores was independent of hospital population sociodemographic differences. ANOVA was used to review associations between HLQ scores and subgroups of demographic, health behaviour and health conditions and these were then compared across the two hospital populations.

resultsPublic hospital participants scored lower than private hospital participants on eight of the nine health literacy domains of the HLQ (scores for Active Appraisal did not differ between the two samples). Six domains, five of which in part measure the impact of how care is delivered on health literacy, remained lower among public hospital participants after controlling for age, education, language and income. Across both hospital populations, participants who were smokers, those who had low physical activity, those with depression and/or anxiety and those with 3 or more chronic conditions reported lower scores on some HLQ domains.

conclusionsOur finding of lower health literacy among patients who had received care at a public hospital in comparison to a private hospital, even after adjustment for sociodemographic and language differences, suggests that private hospitals may possess organisational attributes (environment, structure, values, practices and/or workforce competencies) that result in improved health literacy responsiveness.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth LiteracyHealth Services ResearchHospitals, PrivateHospitals, PublicHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultEquityHealth literacyHospitalsLiteracyQualitySafety

Identifiers

PMID29471836
PMCPMC5824469

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.