ArticlePEC innovation2022
Documenting limited health literacy in a clinical setting.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Associations Between Financial Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients With Cancer.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Empowering Recovery: A Co-Designed Intervention to Transform Care for Operable Lung Cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Health outcomes reported by healthcare providers and clients of a community-based medically tailored meal program.BMC nutrition · 2024Article
- Examining the differences of perceptions and experience with online health information accessibility between deaf and hearing individuals: A qualitative study.Patient education and counseling · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Health literacy is important in lung cancer care, where treatments and symptoms are difficult to navigate. This study aims to describe how a single-item measure of health literacy can facilitate health literacy system capacity. Methods: Data include retrospective medical records from 456 patients with lung cancer. Limited or adequate health literacy was based on participant response to the Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS). Data were collected over a 12-month period following diagnosis for each patient. Results: One-third of patients had limited health literacy; they were more likely to have lung cancers of stage IIIB or higher and greater median levels of depression based on the PHQ-9 questionnaire. Patients with limited health literacy were also more likely to have at least one emergency department visit or unplanned hospitalization and had these visits sooner. Conclusion: These data document need for interventions to buffer the association between limited health literacy and poor health outcomes. Innovation: Routine intake screens should include the SILS to measure health literacy among lung cancer patients. New models that address health literacy at the organizational and patient levels can be implemented in health care settings using the SILS.
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.