ArticlePEC innovation2022
Implementation of health literacy training for clinicians in a federally qualified health center.
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.
- A scoping review of measures to assess health professionals' competencies related to health literacy.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Differences of patient empowerment between elective and contracted physicians in internal medicine in Austria: a quantitative content analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- The Relationship Between Health Literacy Level and Neuropathic Pain Level in Patients With Diabetic Neuropathy.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the effectiveness of a succinct health literacy training for providers at a demanding federally qualified health center. Methods: One group, pretest-posttest design was used to measure for a change in knowledge regarding the effects of limited health literacy, a change in self-reported measure of routine screening for limited health literacy and a change in self-reported utilization of patient-centered communication techniques. Results: The average percentage of correct responses on the Health Literacy Knowledge Check showed significant improvement from 23.6% (SD = 18.1%) to 63.9% (SD = 25.3%), Conclusion: This brief training was effective at improving participants' knowledge of health literacy but did not improve use of recommended communication techniques or screening for health literacy. The results suggest that emphasizing a universal precautions approach to health literacy may be more effective with participants who work in high-volume clinics. Practice implications: For high-volume clinics, a brief training may improve participants' knowledge but does not increase use of actual communication techniques based on self-report.
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.