ArticleBMC primary care2026
Strengthening health literacy among urban marginalised populations through a tailored primary care model: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrban marginalised populations face intersecting barriers, such as poverty, unstable housing and discrimination, that erode health literacy in primary-care contexts. We examined whether an inter-professional, low-barrier primary care model improves health literacy competencies compared with usual care.
methodsA convergent mixed-methods study took place at Centretown Community Health Centre (CCHC), Ottawa (2019–2023). Phase 1 compared Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) scores between clients receiving tailored care (n = 37) and matched community members using usual services (n = 36). Phase 2 explored experiences through four focus groups and semi-structured interviews (n = 23). Independent samples t-tests and inductive thematic analysis were used.
resultsOverall health literacy was moderate in both groups; however, the tailored-care group scored higher on appraisal of health information (M = 3.03 ± 0.57 vs. 2.76 ± 0.46, p = 0.025, d = 0.53). Qualitatively, tailored-care participants described clearer chronic-disease self-management, strategic navigation of appointments, and fewer inappropriate emergency department visits. Persistently low social support scores highlighted systemic isolation.
conclusionsEmbedding social supports, outreach, and client-centred education within primary care can strengthen critical appraisal skills in marginalised settings. Scaling such models should pair literacy interventions with broader community-support strategies.
trial registrationNot applicable (observational study).
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.