Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33939000›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Identification of low health and cancer literacy in oncology patients: a cross-sectional survey.

Amelia Hyatt, Allison Drosdowsky, Trista Koproski, Donna Milne, Meri Rametta, Geri McDonald, Tanya McKenzie, Sarah-May Blaschke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Health Literacy Applications in Patients With Cancer.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Amelia HyattPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. amelia.hyatt@petermac.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-7817
Allison DrosdowskyPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Trista KoproskiPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Donna MilnePeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Meri RamettaPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Geri McDonaldPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tanya McKenziePeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sarah-May BlaschkePeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHealth literacy is a significant public health concern, particularly given the increased complexity of chronic disease health management and health system navigation, and documented associations between low health literacy and poor health outcomes. This study therefore aimed to identify the proportion and characteristics of outpatients visiting a specialist cancer hospital who report low health literacy and/or low cancer health literacy.

methodThis study used a cross-sectional survey administered verbally with patients attending a specialist cancer hospital located in Melbourne, Australia over a two-week period. Process data on conducting health literacy screening within a clinical setting was collected.

resultsThose identified with inadequate general health literacy were different to those identified with low cancer-specific health literacy, although overall both proportions were low. Cross-sectional screening of patients was difficult, despite utilising verbal surveying methods designed to increase capacity for participation.

conclusionHealth literacy screening using the tools selected was not useful for identifying or describing patients with low health literacy in this setting, given the disparity in those categorised by each measure. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Until the theoretical construct of health literacy is better defined, measurement of health literacy may not be clinically useful.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyNeoplasmsChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer Health LiteracyHealthcare CommunicationHealth SystemsPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID33939000
PMCPMC8464552

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.