ArticleBMC family practice2019
Can patients with low health literacy be identified from routine primary care health records? A cross-sectional and prospective analysis.
Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Dataset and Resources for Identifying Patient Health Literacy Information from Clinical Notes.ArXiv · 2026Article
- Estimating the determinants of health literacy for policy prioritisation: a local level case study in Newham, London.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Quality of Cancer-Related Clinical Coding in Primary Care in North Central London: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Project.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Variation in the feasibility and acceptability of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with inflammatory arthritis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Review
- Health literacy and gout characteristics in a primary care cohort.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2024Article
- "The patients first and foremost" collaborative practice in the Australian healthcare system: a qualitative study.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
- The role of socio-demographic and health factors during COVID-19 in remote access to GP care in low-income neighbourhoods: a cross-sectional survey of GP patients.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Health literacy and health promoting behaviors among inpatient women during COVID-19 pandemic.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of health literacy: patient- versus family doctor-reported and associations with self-efficacy and chronic disease.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with low health literacy (HL) are at increased risk of poor health outcomes, and receive less benefit from healthcare services. However, healthcare practitioners can effectively adapt healthcare information if they are aware of their patients' HL. Measurements are available to assess HL levels but may not be practical for use within primary care settings. New alternative methods based on demographic indicators have been successfully developed, and we aim to test if such methodology can be applied to routinely collected consultation records.
methodsSecondary analysis was carried out from a recently completed prospective cohort study that investigated a primary care population who had consulted about a musculoskeletal pain problem. Participants completed questionnaires (assessing general health, HL, pain, and demographic information) at baseline and 6 months, with linked data from the participants' consultation records. The Single Item Literacy Screener was used as a benchmark for HL. We tested the performance of an existing demographic assessment of HL, whether this could be refined/improved further (using questionnaire data), and then test the application in primary care consultation data. Tests included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Finally, the completed model was tested prospectively using logistic regression producing odds ratios (OR) in the prediction of poor health outcomes (physical health and pain intensity).
resultsIn total 1501 participants were included within the analysis and 16.1% were categorised as having low HL. Tests for the existing demographic assessment showed poor performance (AUC 0.52), refinement using additional components derived from the questionnaire improved the model (AUC 0.69), and the final model using data only from consultation data remained improved (AUC 0.64). Tests of this final consultation model in the prediction of outcomes showed those with low HL were 5 times more likely to report poor health (OR 5.1) and almost 4 times more likely to report higher pain intensity (OR 3.9).
conclusionsThis study has shown the feasibility of the assessment of HL using primary care consultation data, and that people indicated as having low HL have poorer health outcomes. Further refinement is now required to increase the accuracy of this method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.