Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32605608›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2020

Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review.

Ronie Walters, Stephen J Leslie, Rob Polson, Tara Cusack, Trish Gorely

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The Effect of Health Literacy Interventions on Self-management in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    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. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of audio-visual health educational materials on CPAP adherence: the AHEAD trial.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ronie WaltersCentre for Health Science, University of the Highlands and Islands, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH, UK. ronie.walters@uhi.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9330-9909
Stephen J LeslieCentre for Health Science, University of the Highlands and Islands, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH, UK.
Rob PolsonCentre for Health Science, University of the Highlands and Islands, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH, UK.
Tara CusackUniversity College Dublin, Health Sciences Building, Bellfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Trish GorelyCentre for Health Science, University of the Highlands and Islands, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary aim of this review was to establish whether health literacy interventions, in adults, are effective for improving health literacy. Two secondary aims assessed the impact of health literacy interventions on health behaviours and whether health literacy interventions have been conducted in cardiovascular patients.

methodsA systematic review (Prospero registration: CRD42018110772) with no start date running through until April 2020. Eligible studies were conducted in adults and included a pre/post measure of health literacy. Medline, Embase, Eric, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Psychology and Behavioural Science, HMIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Social Care Online, NHS Scotland Journals, Social Policy and Practice, and Global Health were searched. Two thousand one hundred twenty-seven papers were assessed, and 57 full text papers screened to give 22 unique datasets from 23 papers. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomisation, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other biases. Intervention reporting quality was assessed using the TIDieR checklist.

resultsTwenty-two studies were included reporting on 10,997 participants in nine countries. The majority of studies (14/22) were published in 2018 or later. Eight studies (n = 1268 participants) also reported on behavioural outcomes. Health literacy interventions resulted in improvements in at least some aspect of health literacy in 15/22 studies (n = 10,180 participants) and improved behavioural outcomes in 7/8 studies (n = 1209 participants). Only two studies were conducted with cardiovascular patients. All studies were at risk of bias with 18 judged as high risk. In addition, there was poor reporting of intervention content with little explication of the theoretical basis for the interventions.

conclusionsHealth literacy interventions can improve health literacy and can also lead to changes in health behaviours. Health literacy interventions offer a way to improve outcomes for populations most at risk of health inequalities. Health literacy is a developing field with very few interventions using clear theoretical frameworks. Closer links between health literacy and behaviour change theories and frameworks could result in higher quality and more effective interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: Prospero registration: CRD42018110772.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth PromotionHealth LiteracyHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScotlandBehaviour changeCardiovascular diseaseHealth literacyInterventionsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32605608
PMCPMC7329558

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.