ArticleUrology2024
Any Questions? Understanding the Functional Health Literacy in Patients Who Underwent Ureteroscopy.
Article in Urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectiveTo correlate health literacy of patients undergoing ureteroscopy and identify gaps within current patient education practices in order to better tailor the preoperative experience.
methodsEighteen patients were retrospectively recruited to complete an in-depth semistructured interview and the Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults (TOFHLA). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded and analyzed using the grounded theory of analysis.
resultsThe average participant age was 56.2 ± 12.8years, and 10 (55.6%) identified as female. Education level ranged from some high school to a professional degree. The average TOFHLA score was 88.1 ± 11.7. Irrespective of score, all participants felt they understood the purpose and basic elements of a ureteroscopy. The use of nontechnical language, repetition, and previous healthcare experiences were identified as positive aspects of the education experience. However, 72.2% (n = 13) identified the primary gap in understanding revolved around the use, purpose, and pain associated with stents.
conclusionFunctional health literacy is an essential element, but not the only factor informing patient education and comprehension. Current practices are effective in explaining the basics of a ureteroscopy, but even when identified health literacy is higher than expected, a gap remains in stent education. Efforts should be made to better understand how stents can be effectively explained to patients in addition to continuing to refine education practices to elicit true comprehension.
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.