ArticleObesity surgery2024
Accuracy of Healthcare Professionals' Estimations of Health Literacy and Numeracy of Patients Visiting Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Clinic.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2024. 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.
- Expert Consensus on Obesity Management Protocols - A Joint Position Statement by Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society of India (OSSI) and Endocrine Society of India (ESI).Obesity surgery · 2026Review
- World's First Revisional Metabolic Bariatric Surgery under Regional Anesthesia: Laparoscopic Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass - A Case Report.Obesity facts · 2026Article
- Impact of health literacy and general self-efficacy on surgical outcomes 2 years after bariatric surgery.Clinical obesity · 2025Article
- MGB-OAGB International Club-Results of a Modified Delphi Consensus on Controversies in OAGB.Obesity surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo effectively support patients through their weight loss journey, it is vital that healthcare professionals (HCPs) understand the health literacy skills of their patients and communicate in a way that meets these needs. This is the first study looking at the accuracy of HCPs' estimations of their patients' health literacy and numeracy attending a metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) clinic.
methodA cross-sectional study was completed at a tertiary-level MBS clinic in London. Patients completed a demographic questionnaire and a validated measure of health literacy and numeracy, the Medical Term Recognition Test (METER) and General Health Numeracy Test-Short Form (GHNT-6), respectively. HCPs provided estimations of their patient's health literacy and numeracy based on each questionnaire's scoring categories.
resultsData was collected for 31 patients. A 80.6% of patients had functional health literacy based on METER. HCPs estimated patients' health literacy correctly 61.1% of the time; inter-rater agreement was poor (ICC = 0.14; 95% CI = - 0.19, 0.443; p = 0.202). A total of 22.6% of patients scored 0 out of 6 on GHNT-6. HCPs estimated health numeracy correctly 13.9% of the time and were more likely to overestimate than underestimate health numeracy. Inter-rater agreement for health numeracy was poor (ICC = - 0.2; 95% CI = - 0.49, 0.14; p = 0.878).
conclusionThere is poor agreement between HCPs' perception of their patients' health literacy and numeracy and their assessed ability. HCPs' understanding of their patient's health literacy and numeracy skills is vital in ensuring HCPs can support patients through the challenging bariatric surgical pathway, consenting process and post-operative course.
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.