ReviewSAGE open nursing
Health Literacy in Patients' Clinical Records of Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.
Review in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Expectations, Satisfaction and Perceptions of Specialization in Family Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Health Literacy Perspective in Türkiye.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Dataset and Resources for Identifying Patient Health Literacy Information from Clinical Notes.ArXiv · 2026Article
- Health literacy of patients hospitalized for digestive surgeries.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
- Health Literacy Applications in Patients With Cancer.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025Review
- Standardized Nursing Diagnoses in a Surgical Hospital Setting: A Retrospective Study Based on Electronic Health Data.SAGE open nursingArticle
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
Introduction: Health literacy (HL) can be defined as the individual's ability to understand and process health information. A low level of HL can be viewed as a stronger predictor of a person's health status than age, education level, and race. Although HL is an important determinant of health, it is often underestimated. This systematic review investigates the evidence on HL assessment in hospital settings. Methods: PubMed Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Educational Resources Information Centre databases were searched, with the date last searched being 16 March 2020. The PRISMA guidelines were applied, and the protocol of the study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021236029). The quality of the included studies was appraised using the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for cross-sectional studies. Results: Five studies reported HL assessments in hospital patients' clinical records. Four main strategies were used to implement HL routine assessment in hospitals: multidisciplinary teams, stakeholders, training, and monitoring. Different performance measures were used to monitor the feasibility of incorporating HL assessment into electronic health records (EHRs). Conclusion: This review examined how inpatients' HL is recorded in hospital settings. HL is poorly measured in a hospital setting. These results guide hospital leadership in involving nurses in HL assessment implementation in hospitals and support nurses in creating a specific performance measure dashboard to monitor effective HL assessments in hospitals.
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.