Individuals engage with health systems to determine their health status and how to manage their health outcomes. On the personal level, health literacy is the degree to which individuals can find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others. Individuals with low levels of health literacy are at risk for increased hospitalizations, chronic disease morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates compared to individuals with higher levels of health literacy. There is an increased need to both assess health literacy and to implement interventions to improve health literacy.
The purpose of this literature review is to identify gaps in the current landscape of health literacy interventions within health systems. The findings will be used to inform future interventions.
- Patients with chronic diseases are target groups for health literacy assistance.
- Health systems encourage active stakeholder participation in the development of health literacy interventions.
- Social support activities such as group-based education or one-on-one consultation with an expert are utilized in health system-driven health literacy interventions.
- Patients report a lack of confidence in assessing the quality of information on the internet and using this information to make health decisions.
- Studies show statistically insignificant changes between the intervention and control group despite patients reporting positive experiences with the health literacy intervention.
- Health literacy screening assessments are not an established part of the hospital intake process.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) national public health initiative Healthy People 2030 reframes health literacy into two parts: personal health literacy and organizational health literacy.1 The CDC defines personal health literacy as “the degree to which individuals have the ability to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others” 2 and defines organizational health literacy as “the degree to which organizations equitably enable individuals to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others”.2 In addition to struggling to interpret health information, individuals with low levels of personal health literacy are at risk for increased hospitalization rates, chronic disease, and higher mortality rates.3 By improving health literacy levels, individuals are able to actively engage in managing health outcomes for themselves and others 3. Furthermore, the CDC recommends organizations to become health literate to have the capabilities to assist patients in increasing personal health literacy levels.4
Health systems are possible organizations involved in managing individuals’ health literacy levels. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), health systems are defined as an “organization that includes at least one hospital and at least one group of physicians that provides comprehensive care (including primary and specialty care) who are connected with each other and with the hospital through common ownership or joint management”.5 Through the concept of personal health literacy, individuals are responsible for managing their own health outcomes and navigating the healthcare system, but organizations such as health systems can make this process easier for individuals. Research has shown that increased coproduction of care between patients and health services can lead to outcomes such as enhanced patient satisfaction, better care coordination, and improved health status.6 The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s (NASEM) Roundtable on Health Literacy identified 10 attributes healthcare organizations can utilize to become health literate.7 Specifically, these 10 attributes are:
- “Has leadership that makes health literacy integral to its mission, structure, and operations.
- Integrates health literacy into planning, evaluation measures, patient safety, and quality improvement.
- Prepares the workforce to be health literate and monitors progress.
- Includes populations served in the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information and services.
- Meets the needs of populations with a range of health literacy skills while avoiding stigmatization.
- Uses health literacy strategies in interpersonal communications and confirms understanding at all points of contact.
- Provides easy access to health information and services and navigation assistance.
- Designs and distributes print, audiovisual, and social media content that is easy to understand and act on.
- Addresses health literacy in high-risk situations, including care transitions and communications about medicines.
- Communicates clearly what health plans cover and what individuals will have to pay for services.”7
It is important to acknowledge the rise in digital health technologies enabling health systems to provide flexible and accessible healthcare services for consumers.8 Examples of these technologies include telemedicine, e-prescribing, electronic health records, and patient portals. In order to understand how individuals find and understand health information from electronic sources, the concept of electronic health (eHealth) literacy was defined by Norman and Skinner: “the ability to appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem”.2,9 Although personal health literacy and eHealth literacy involve finding and understanding health information, these concepts cannot be used interchangeably. This paper seeks to understand how health systems are enabling patients to access and understand health information to make health-related decisions for themselves. Generally, the mode of the intervention (in-person versus electronic) dictates the type of health literacy assessment used to measure their outcomes of interest. To determine which health literacy interventions health systems are conducting, a literature review was performed to understand the current landscape of studies on health literacy interventions within health systems. The literature review will attempt to answer several research questions about health literacy interventions occurring within health systems:
- How do health systems assess consumers to determine whether they will need assistance with health literacy?
- Where do systems find help with health literacy?
- What health literacy interventions are used within health systems? If they exist, how do they operate to meet consumers’ needs?
- What gaps in health system-driven interventions are unanswered?
Articles were identified by constructing a search strategy for PubMed. PubMed was chosen as the sole database, as it contains millions of full-text articles from life sciences and biomedical science journals. The search period lasted from November 1, 2021, to November 9, 2021. Relevant keywords for the database search included health systems, health literacy, and interventions. For the purpose of this study, AHRQ’s definition of health system was used. However, other examples of organizations providing health literacy programs are community health centers and federally qualified health centers. These centers may not be included in the common definition of a health system, but we expanded the definition in relation to our research question. These key terms were used to construct search terms, which included the aforementioned terms and related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Duplicate publications were removed using Zotero’s duplication finder. Additional articles were included through forward snowballing.
After the initial search was conducted, a 10-year filter was used to obtain articles published within the last 10 years. Once duplicate articles were removed, titles and abstracts were screened based on relevancy. Articles were deemed relevant if the articles involved a patient sample and health literacy, or disease-specific knowledge as an outcome of the study. These same screening criteria was utilized during the full-text review.
Full-text articles were reviewed in an ascending chronological order with column topics using the matrix method.10 Fundamental information such as the author, title, journal, purpose, study design, patient characteristics, outcome(s), results, and implications of the study was recorded.
A total of 1,590 articles were identified from the initial search strategy with no duplicates. Two additional articles were found through snowballing. A total of 1,592 records were screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After screening the title and/or abstracts, 79 articles were determined to meet the criteria for full-text assessment. A total of 12 full-text articles were excluded after the full-text assessment, leaving 67 articles included in the final review. Table 1 summarizes the type of research approach and study design for the 67 studies.11–77 The literature review reveals two study approaches conducted by researchers and health systems to understand the current landscape of health literacy interventions within health systems: cross-sectional surveys and randomized controlled trials. Cross-sectional surveys were typically presented to patients as a way to determine their current levels of health literacy and/or eHealth literacy, as well as determining associated predictors for these literacy levels. Randomized controlled trials measured the effects of educational interventions designed and delivered by health systems on patients’ specific disease knowledge, health literacy, or eHealth literacy. Both study approaches used pre-developed scales to measure levels of eHealth literacy and/or health literacy, depending on the outcome of interest in the study. The interventions used the scales as health literacy assessments to assess changes in health literacy and/or eHealth literacy. These scales are discussed in a later subsection. The 67 studies were analyzed for themes related to the research questions. The themes are presented in the following subsections according to the research questions.
How Do Health Systems Assess Consumers to Determine Whether They Will Need Assistance With Health Literacy?
Theme 1: Patients with chronic diseases are target groups for health literacy assistance.
A majority of the health literacy interventions targeted patients with chronic diseases.11–21,23–25,28,30,33,36–38,42–44,47–51,53,55,57,61–66,68,74 Examples of these chronic diseases include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, coronary heart disease, congenital heart disease, prostate cancer, arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), HIV, epilepsy, skin cancer, and chronic kidney disease.
Health systems conducted studies to determine associations between levels of health literacy or eHealth literacy levels and potential predictor variables such as age, education, internet usage, access to electronic resources, and quality of life.22,29,31,32,34,35,39–41,46,52,54,54,56–60,67,69,71–77 Although it was not found to be significant in all studies, age and education were common predictors of health literacy levels compared to other predictor variables. One study evaluated the effects of telehomecare. Telehomecare uses telehealth technology to deliver healthcare services to a patient at home, enabling the interaction of voice, video, and health-related data on functional literacy. The study was conducted over the span of 10 months in patients with COPD.30 The researchers found no statistically significant changes in functional health literacy between groups, but significant increases in functional health literacy were found within the telehomecare group and the control group receiving usual care after the intervention. A regression analysis determined age and years of education as variables significantly associated with levels of functional health literacy at the 10-month follow-up.30
High internet usage, high levels of education, and frequent access to electronic resources to find health-related information was consistently associated with higher levels of eHealth literacy. 22,34,35,40,42,45,52,56,69,72,76 One cross-sectional study sampled outpatients receiving medical imaging and issued a questionnaire containing questions about eHealth literacy, demographics, and frequency of internet usage.52 This study used a cluster analysis and grouped outpatients according to their answers to the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). The researchers identified four major groups of eHealth literacy adequacy: low eHealth literacy, moderate eHealth literacy, high eHealth literacy, and very high eHealth literacy. Outpatients receiving medical resonance imaging (MRI) who preferred to receive a lot of health information or used the internet at least daily had higher odds of having high eHealth literacy levels when compared to the low eHealth literacy group.52
Theme 2: Scales are used to screen for health literacy levels and measure the impact of interventions.
Various scales were used to measure and assess changes in health literacy. These scales included: Danish Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA), Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU), Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS), Functional Communicative Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL), and Newest Vital Sign (NVS). The eHEALS was used as the sole scale to measure and assess changes in eHealth literacy. Table 2 summarizes the scales and domain-specific questionnaires found in the literature review and which studies utilized which scale. These scales were also used to categorize participants in varying levels of health literacy proficiency. Instead of these scales, some studies had domain-specific questionnaires to assess change in self-management knowledge for various chronic diseases.
One study compared two versions of the European Health Literacy Survey (a six-item version and a 16-item version) among asthma patients to determine if the versions would produce similar results. Using the six-item version would be beneficial over the 16-item version in time-restricted clinical settings.67 Although the researchers found that the two versions were highly correlated (r = 0.93), the researchers concluded the questionnaires were not interchangeable due to high standard deviations between mean differences of the two scores. Furthermore, the researchers discuss a loss of “both information and … theoretical scope” when using the six-item version compared to the 16-item version.67
Where Do Systems Find Help With Health Literacy?
Theme 3: Health system-driven interventions use evidence-based guidelines to curate material presented in health literacy interventions.
Health literacy interventions conducted within health systems are usually done in partnership with researchers from a university or medical school through academic medical centers.11–21,23–25,28,30,33,36–38,42–44,47–51,53,55,57,61–66,68,74 Researchers develop educational material using their own domain expert knowledge or evidence-based guidelines approved by a governing body. Evidence-based guidelines are sometimes referred to as clinical practice guidelines, and the Institute of Medicine defines clinical practical guidelines as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances”.78 Studies use this material to develop educational content for their health literacy intervention. For example, Williams et al. conducted a study evaluating the feasibility, cost-efficiency, and acceptability of webinars to educate patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).66 Information from the webinar came from the 2016 British Dietetic Association evidenced-based practice guidelines for diet management for adults with IBS. Nearly all of the participants rated this webinar as having accurate and reliable information and reported having more knowledge of IBS post-webinar. Participants felt more confident in managing their condition post-webinar compared to pre-webinar.66 Another example of a health literacy intervention was a web-based epilepsy education program for children with epilepsy and their parents.65 Content for the website was pulled from trusted websites such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network which publish epilepsy guidelines. Parents and children with epilepsy reported the website as having high quality content and being highly user-friendly. Furthermore, statistical analysis within the experimental group revealed both parents and children with epilepsy had an increase in measures such as eHealth literacy and epilepsy knowledge after the intervention.65
Theme 4: Health systems encourage active stakeholder participation in the development of health literacy interventions.
Some health literacy interventions conducted within health systems involved potential stakeholders in the development of the health literacy interventions.17,18,23,49,53,55,64,65,70,74 Examples of potential stakeholders include clinicians, community health workers, other health professionals, patients, and friends or family members of the patient. These approaches may be referred to in the literature as participatory design or community-based participation research.
Examples of how researchers involved stakeholders in development of health literacy interventions include conducting stakeholder interviews, co-developing the educational curriculum or pretesting the intervention tool with stakeholders. For example, Banbury et al. described the co-design process of the Telehealth Literacy Project, a health literacy intervention focused on chronic disease self-management and social support for older people through group videoconferencing.55 The design process involved consultation with telehealth nurses and case managers who worked together to identify barriers to health literacy and strategies to induce change. After these consultations, healthcare professionals led a trial patient education session delivered via group videoconferencing.
Meetings were conducted with the patients to obtain feedback over the trial patient education session. Patients expressed a preference for connecting with others over self-managing chronic disease, but acknowledged potential technical issues. This feedback was incorporated into developing the course content and technical logistics for the intervention. After conducting the intervention, researchers found changes in health literacy were not substantial, but patients reported successful development in social connections which led to the patients feeling more confident in the self-management of their chronic disease.55
What Health Literacy Interventions Are Used Within Health Systems? If They Exist, How Do They Operate to Meet Consumers’ Needs?
Theme 5: Health system-driven health literacy interventions are delivered in multiple forms of technology.
Appendix A includes information about the purpose, intervention tool, methodology, and results of the health system-driven health literacy interventions. Examples of how these interventions were delivered include webinars, in-person group education sessions, one-on-one coaching, mobile applications, web modules, DVDs, patient portals, phone calls, or decision aids. In one study, a group of researchers evaluated the effects of a mock web portal on patient knowledge and perceptions of pharmacogenomics.64 For this intervention, the mock web portal displayed pharmacogenomics results for varying medications. The mock web portal utilized traffic light iconography, allowing patients to easily identify their risk for a medication. Statistical analysis of the knowledge assessment indicated the two study groups evaluating the portal experienced an increase in pharmacogenomics knowledge after the intervention. No differences in score changes existed between both groups. However, all patients had a positive perception of the pharmacogenomics after viewing the mock web patient portal and expressed interests such as providing test results to their providers or encouraging family and friends to get pharmacogenomics testing.64
Theme 6: Social support activities such as group-based education or one-on-one consultation with an expert are utilized in health system-driven health literacy interventions.
Several studies incorporated social support within their health literacy intervention to facilitate engagement and knowledge acquisition.14–16,18,21,23,25,26,30,44,55,57,63,74 Examples of these activities included group-based interactive education sessions or one-on-one consultations with experts such as nurses, health students (PharmD and RN candidates), medical students, and community health workers. For example, one qualitative study involved an intervention where community health workers delivered one-on-one diabetes self-management education at the homes of patients.44 The American Public Health Association defines a community health worker as a “frontline public health worker” connected to the community served. A community health worker acts as a liaison between health services and the community improving access to health services with a focus on increasing cultural competency and quality of the service delivery.79 Based on the patient’s questions and interests, community health workers went beyond the six required education modules and assisted the patient in various activities such as enrolling in SNAP benefits or formulating an action plan. The community health workers provided in-depth education to the patients about diabetes self-management and nutrition, connected participants to community resources, and assisted patients in navigating the healthcare system. The researchers concluded community health workers could engage with the patients in a unique valuable way unreplicable within the primary care clinical setting due to time restrictions.44
Another health literacy intervention involving community health coaches was the Support via Telephone Advice and Resources (STAR-MAMA) study involving low-income, postpartum minority women who had prior gestational diabetes mellitus.23 The health literacy intervention was an automated telemedicine self-support system over diabetes topics supplemented by a health coach. This health coach called the women once a week and connected them to community resources such as community programs, food banks, mental health support groups, and others. Case studies of the mothers indicate health coaches were able to provide relevant education and support over postpartum care while connecting mothers to new primary care providers and community programs such as food banks and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program clinics.23
What Gaps in Health System Driven Interventions Are Unanswered?
Theme 7: Patients report a lack of confidence in assessing the quality of information on the internet and using this information to make health decisions.
In studies where eHEALS was used to measure eHealth literacy, participants expressed concern over distinguishing high-quality health resources from low-quality health resources and using this information to make health decisions. 22,31,32,40,45,59,60,67,70,71 Furthermore, a qualitative study where researchers interviewed patients with systemic sclerosis revealed pain points in their experience in using the internet to find information over systemic sclerosis.70 As stated by the researchers, systemic sclerosis is a rare multisystem autoimmune disease targeting connective tissue. These patients reported the need to be guided in evaluating the reliability of information being presented on the internet.70
Theme 8: Studies show statistically insignificant changes between intervention and control groups, despite patients reporting positive experiences with a health literacy intervention.
Although the majority of the studies in our review reported statistically significant increases in knowledge and/or health literacy levels post-intervention within the intervention group, some studies report no statistically significant differences between groups. 12,14,17,20,25,30,37,48,62,64 Statistical results for all health literacy interventions can be found in Appendix A. Of the 16 interventions conducting a between-group analysis with intervention and control groups, 10 of them reported insignificant changes in health literacy levels and/or domain-specific knowledge between groups.12,14,17,20,25,30,37,48,62,64 For example, a group of researchers in South Korea led a health literacy intervention evaluating the effects of ubiquitous healthcare (uHealth, where uHealth is a combination of terms such as “telemedicine,” “telecare,” and “eHealth” in South Korea). The intervention targeted patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on their knowledge, skills, and attitudes .14 All patients received uHealth devices for telemonitoring, but two of the three groups received additional teleconsultation to provide patient education over COPD. Although all three groups had statistically significant increases in self-management knowledge post-intervention, the differences between the three groups were statistically insignificant. The researchers hypothesized the lack of statistical significance between the three groups could be due to factors such as external sources of communication and information, time constraints in delivering information, and the lack of a control group. Despite the lack of statistical significance between the three groups in self-management knowledge, the majority of patients reported “satisfied” or “very satisfied” experiences with the uHealth devices .14
Theme 9: Health literacy screening assessments are not an established part of the hospital intake process.
All of the studies found in this literature review sample patients who have an identified chronic disease. Health literacy screening assessments such as the NVS and TOFHLA were used on these patients. The list of all screening assessments used can be found in Table 2 mentioned in Theme 2. However, none of the studies in this literature review described using health literacy screening tools as a way to identify all patients with limited health literacy in a health system.
An analysis of the studies in this review led to the identification of nine themes which could be utilized in the development of future health system-driven health literacy interventions.
The review identified patients with chronic diseases as the target population for these health literacy interventions within health systems. More specifically, some examples of these chronic diseases are COPD, prostate cancer, arthritis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), epilepsy, and diabetes. It is important to recognize the growing prevalence of chronic disease worldwide, which was estimated to increase 57 percent in 2020.80 In 2018, it was estimated at least 51.8 percent (approximately 129 million) of adults in the US had been diagnosed with at least one chronic condition, such as arthritis, cancer, COPD, asthma, diabetes, or stroke. Furthermore, chronic diseases have an impact on healthcare costs. According to the CDC, chronic diseases and mental health account for an estimated 90 percent of $3.8 trillion (approximately $3.2 trillion) of yearly healthcare expenditures.81 With that being said, it is beneficial for patients with chronic disease to participate in health literacy interventions as they can increase health literacy levels and build preventive health practices and health promoting behaviors.82 As a result, it could lead to the prevention of hospital readmissions and lower costs. In fact, one five-year study showed providing patient education using a teach-back approach led to a net savings of $675 per patient, per year, along with a 32 percent decrease in hospitalizations .83
To design effective health literacy interventions for chronic disease, it is important include an effective and sustainable self-management plan. Aria and Archer report on the lack of studies evaluating intervention sustainability. They found a systematic review reporting that only one of seven studied cardiovascular disease self-management programs lasted as long as one year.84 Furthermore, they acknowledge the complexity of chronic self-management and constructed a conceptual model to demonstrate this complexity. They describe a patient-centered approach in which patients are engaged in self-monitoring, self-care, adherence, and decision support. External influences to support and sustain patients on this self-management journey include family and community support, education and training, and some form of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to maintain sustainability of the plan. 84 This complex self-management model is consistent with other models such as that proposed by Dunn and Conard.85 Dunn and Conard propose a new chronic disease self-management model focused on functional and critical health literacy skills. More specifically, the model focuses on components of health literacy such as reading and comprehension, numeracy, navigation, communication, and ultimately decision-making. Furthermore, this model must be inclusive of all patients, regardless of delivery, which could vary from in-person education sessions or a smartphone application.85 To determine the best-fit approach delivery mode for this model, needs assessments and interviews can be conducted with patients to identify pain points navigating the healthcare system and preferences in health information delivery.
From the studies included in this literature review, nine different general health literacy scales were used to either categorize patients in ordinal categories of health literacy or assess changes in health literacy knowledge. It is clear no standard health literacy assessment was used across all health literacy interventions. Further inspection of each scale shows the scales are used to test different components of health literacy. For example, the NVS is a clinical assessment used to test prose literacy, numeracy, and document literacy.86 On the other hand, the REALM is a word recognition test and does not assess a patient’s comprehensions of medical concepts.87 To design an effective health literacy intervention, it is important to pick a scale which will assess the skills and knowledge developed by the intervention. Also, domain-specific knowledge assessments can be used in conjunction with health literacy measures to assess specific knowledge concepts over domains such as a specific chronic disease.
All eHealth literacy interventions in this review used the eHEALS, a reliable tool to capture eHealth literacy concepts.88 However, research indicates a lack of validity, as correlations between eHEALS scores and performance tests were weak and nonsignificant.89 This finding suggests eHEALS can be used a screening tool to quickly assess eHealth literacy levels, but it cannot objectively measure skills as described by the concept of eHealth literacy. Furthermore, research shows eHealth literacy differs between general health literacy, as no relationship exists between eHEALS and NVS.90 When designing eHealth literacy interventions, eHEALS should be used in conjunction with a reliable and validated health literacy scale such as NVS or TOFHLA to assess changes in patients’ reading comprehension and numeracy skills.
It is not surprising to see evidence-based guidelines used to develop the content presented in health literacy interventions. However, it is important to assess patient trust in health information and who is delivering this health information. A meta-analysis of patient trust in healthcare professionals shows higher trust levels are associated with improved clinical outcomes, such as higher quality of life, high satisfaction in treatment, and beneficial health behaviors compared to levels of lower trust in healthcare professionals.91 In terms of the relationship between health literacy and how health information is trusted and used by individuals, it was found that those with lower levels of health literacy are less likely to trust specialized information coming from doctors than individuals with higher levels of health literacy.92 Instead, individuals with limited levels of health literacy are more likely to trust information coming from other sources such as friends, blogs, and social media. Health literacy interventions should teach individuals how to evaluate health information quality.
Within health systems, the development of health literacy interventions is fostered by an active participation of stakeholders, such as clinicians and sample patients. In the research setting, this type of relationship could be described as patient and public involvement (PPI) where patients and/or public community members work with researchers in developing and implementingresearch.93 Using PPI in research allows researchers to identify and understand patient needs and problems, which informs the design and content of the health literacy intervention. A mapping review of PPI in health literacy interventions conducted by Wilsher et. al. found 20 out of 96 studies involved patient and/or public involvement in at least designing, managing, or evaluating the intervention.94 Some specific impacts noted by the researchers that PPI had on these 20 studies included an increased confidence to communicate with medical professionals, as well as meeting unmet needs only discovered by involving patients in the intervention development. An example of PPI within the US may be referred to as community-based participatory research. Community-based participatory research can be described as “an approach in which researchers undertake research in partnership with those affected by the issue being studied, for the purpose of taking action or effecting social change”.95 Applying community-based participatory research in health literacy interventions allows strategies such as co-learning, solving problems of local relevance, and building sustainability within the community.96 These strategies will foster patient engagement and create an effective health literacy intervention pertinent to the community.
Health literacy interventions found in this literature review were delivered in different forms of technology such as patient portals, text messages , DVDs, webinars, mobile applications, health coaches, or decision aids.11–21,23–25,28,30,33,36–38,42–44,47–51,53,55,57,61–66,68,74 These interventions were delivered in person, on the phone, or remotely. Although these health literacy interventions increased health literacy levels significantly after the intervention, the focus of an intervention should be on content and not delivery method. Referring back to the model proposed by Dunn and Conard, an effective model for chronic disease self-management should focus on health literacy content and building skills to make effective health-related decisions.85 However, Dunn and Conard do note investments in the tool technology and educational resources will only increase the model’s effectiveness.85 Nonetheless, the mode of delivery should be informed by patient needs and preferences for health information delivery as patients will be using the tool. Iterative design could be a potential method in developing the tool as it involves cyclic process of prototyping, testing, and refining the tool based on evolving patient needs and preferences.
The literature review revealed two forms of social support in the form of group-based education with other patients or one-on-one consultation with an expert. Within this literature review, community health workers were showcased as a valuable source to providing patient education and connecting patients to community resources. New research has identified the functions and roles community health workers fill in primary care.97 Examples of these functions include: health coaching; providing social support; case management; and health literacy support, which allow them to fill roles such as clinical services; community resource connections; and health education and coaching.97 Furthermore, incorporating social influence in clinical interventions can influence health outcomes. For example, one meta-analysis revealed psychoeducation or familial-based interventions had a more positive effect on health outcomes than standard treatments.98 Another study showed health literacy and perceived social support was associated with higher levels of self-care behaviors in adults with heart failure 99. These studies show the potential effect social support may have on health outcomes in health literacy interventions. Although it may not be feasible in all interventions, incorporating social support within a health literacy intervention may be beneficial in maintaining sustainability for self-management behaviors for a chronic disease.84
This literature review revealed three unanswered gaps within health system-driven health literacy interventions, which are: (1) lack of patient confidence in understanding and using health information from the internet; (2) studies document positive experiences with health literacy interventions, but not all show statistically significant results between intervention and control groups; and (3) health literacy is not assessed within the clinical workflow of health systems. For the first unanswered gap, the internet has become the first source of health information for many patients.100 However, the internet may not be a reliable source of information. A meta-analysis evaluating the overall quality of online health information for patients shows a majority of the websites were rated as “poor” to “good” quality 101. It is not surprising patients report a lack of confidence in evaluating health information from the internet. Further research must be done in order to assess how health literacy interventions can assist patients in appraising health information on the internet in order to make evidence-based health decisions.
For the second unanswered gap, statistically insignificant results between the intervention and control groups could be attributed to many factors outside of a given intervention. These factors include study design, sampling design, or external factors outside of researcher control. For example, randomized clinical trials testing new tools or interventions are not always able to employ a blinded study design. Control patients receiving usual care are aware of their placement and may unconsciously look for quality sources of information to educate themselves over the tested content. As a result, this activity could introduce bias and skew the results. Another reason why statistically insignificant results occur between the control group and intervention group is the effect of the intervention is not effectively captured by the health literacy tool used in the study. It is imperative for researchers to use or develop a scale appropriately evaluating skills and knowledge taught by the intervention. Other ways to define meaningful changes in health literacy could be qualitative interviews over the patients’ experience of the health literacy intervention. Nonetheless, a majority of the studies found in the literature showed statistically significant increases in health literacy and/or knowledge within groups after the intervention. These results show the intervention has some positive effect on health literacy levels.
For the third unanswered gap, clinical workflow systems do not utilize health literacy screening tools to identify patients with limited health literacy. All of the studies found in this literature review deal with patients with chronic diseases who have identified needs. However, this observation means there is a lack of health screening tools being incorporated into the clinical workflow to identify any patient with limited health literacy. Research shows higher levels of health literacy is associated with at least a reduction in the occurrence of comorbid conditions.102 The researchers hypothesize patients with an initial chronic disease are motivated to become health literate in order to learn and practice self-management behavior. This leads to a protective factor against developing comorbidities. Incorporating health literacy screening assessments within the clinical workflow can allow for the identification of patients with limited health literacy. By identifying these patients, health systems can be proactive in preventing chronic disease development and issue tailored information to varying levels of health literacy. This process could be administered in a two-step process in a similar manner as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), such as PHQ-2 and PHQ-9. The PHQ-2 is a quick screening assessment for depression, whereas the PHQ-9 is used on patients who screened positive on the PHQ-2 to determine if they meet the criteria for depressive disorders.103 Two studies reported health literacy screening assessments (e.g., BHLS and Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine – Short Form [REALM-SF]) can be implemented in a feasible manner into clinical assessments and documented within the electronic health record.104,105 Future research is needed to determine how screening assessments can be implemented across all health systems and their impact on clinical outcomes and distribution of patient education resources.
This literature review has several limitations. First, it may not have captured all relevant articles related to health literacy interventions within health systems using the PubMed database. The search strategy should be evaluated to see if it could be improved upon to capture more studies. Second, only PubMed was used to identify these interventions. Other databases should be incorporated to capture other studies not present in PubMed.
In summary, patients with chronic disease were identified as major targets for health literacy interventions within health systems. Regardless of candidacy, health systems should incorporate health literacy tools within the clinical workflow to screen all patients for limited health literacy. Thus identified, patients with limited health literacy can work with a health system on increasing their levels of health literacy. Furthermore, social support and/or stakeholder management are methods used by health systems to facilitate patient engagement with health literacy interventions. When designing health literacy interventions, researchers should ensure their assessment accurately measures the effect of the health literacy intervention when assessing changes in health literacy between groups. These findings extend knowledge about health literacy interventions within health systems which can be used to inform future development of health literacy interventions.
1. Health Literacy in Healthy People 2030 | health.gov. https://health.gov/our-work/national-health-initiatives/healthy-people/healthy-people-2030/health-literacy-healthy-people-2030.
2. CDC. What is health literacy? Take action. Find out. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/learn/index.html (2021).
3. Hickey, K. T. et al. Low health literacy. Nurse Pract 43, 49–55 (2018).
4. Health Literacy: A Key to Good Health. https://www.samhsa.gov/blog/health-literacy-key-good-health.
5. Defining Health Systems. https://www.ahrq.gov/chsp/chsp-reports/resources-for-understanding-health-systems/defining-health-systems.html.
6. Palumbo, R. Contextualizing co-production of health care: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29, 72–90 (2016).
7. Ten Attributes of Health Literate Health Care Organizations. https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/publications/ten-attributes.html.
8. Senbekov, M. et al. The Recent Progress and Applications of Digital Technologies in Healthcare: A Review. Int J Telemed Appl 2020, 8830200 (2020).
9. Norman, C. D. & Skinner, H. A. eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World. J Med Internet Res 8, e9 (2006).
10. Garrard, J. Part II: The Matrix Method. in Health sciences literature review made easy: the matrix method 95–176 (Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2017).
11. Kobak, K. A. et al. A web-based tutorial for parents of young children with autism: results from a pilot study. Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association 17, 804–808 (2011).
12. Schweickert, P. A. et al. Telehealth stroke education for rural elderly Virginians. Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association 17, 784–788 (2011).
13. Eaton, L. et al. On-line bariatric surgery information session as effective as in-person information session. Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery 8, 225–229; discussion 229 (2012).
14. Kim, J. et al. Effects of consumer-centered u-health service for the knowledge, skill, and attitude of the patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN 30, 661–671 (2012).
15. Leung, L. B. et al. Approach to antihypertensive adherence: a feasibility study on the use of student health coaches for uninsured hypertensive adults. Behav Med 38, 19–27 (2012).
16. Banbury, A. et al. Multi-site videoconferencing for home-based education of older people with chronic conditions: the Telehealth Literacy Project. Journal of telemedicine and telecare 20, 353–359 (2014).
17. Heisler, M. et al. Comparison of community health worker-led diabetes medication decision-making support for low-income Latino and African American adults with diabetes using e-health tools versus print materials: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of internal medicine 161, S13-22 (2014).
18. Ma, G. X. et al. The impact of a community-based clinical trial educational intervention among underrepresented Chinese Americans. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 23, 424–432 (2014).
19. Magee, M. F., Khan, N. H., Desale, S. & Nassar, C. M. Diabetes to Go: Knowledge- and Competency-Based Hospital Survival Skills Diabetes Education Program Improves Postdischarge Medication Adherence. The Diabetes educator 40, 344–350 (2014).
20. Sheridan, S. L. et al. The effect of a decision aid intervention on decision making about coronary heart disease risk reduction: secondary analyses of a randomized trial. BMC medical informatics and decision making 14, 14 (2014).
21. Chiapponi, C. et al. Involving Medical Students in Informed Consent: A Pilot Study. World J Surg 39, 2214–2219 (2015).
22. Milne, R. A. et al. Predictors of High eHealth Literacy in Primary Lung Cancer Survivors. Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education 30, 685–692 (2015).
23. Athavale, P. et al. Linking High Risk Postpartum Women with a Technology Enabled Health Coaching Program to Reduce Diabetes Risk and Improve Wellbeing: Program Description, Case Studies, and Recommendations for Community Health Coaching Programs. Journal of diabetes research 2016, 4353956 (2016).
24. Cai, C. & Hu, J. Effectiveness of a Family-based Diabetes Self-management Educational Intervention for Chinese Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Wuhan, China. The Diabetes educator 42, 697–711 (2016).
25. Korsbakke Emtekaer Haesum, L., Ehlers, L. & Hejlesen, O. K. Interaction between functional health literacy and telehomecare: Short-term effects from a randomized trial. Nursing & health sciences 18, 328–333 (2016).
26. Lilholt, P. H., Hæsum, L. K. E., Ehlers, L. H. & Hejlesen, O. K. Specific technological communication skills and functional health literacy have no influence on self-reported benefits from enrollment in the TeleCare North trial. International journal of medical informatics 91, 60–66 (2016).
27. Whealin, J. M., Jenchura, E. C., Wong, A. C. & Zulman, D. M. How Veterans With Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Comorbid Health Conditions Utilize eHealth to Manage Their Health Care Needs: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 18, e280 (2016).
28. Yehle, K. S., Plake, K. S., Nguyen, P. & Smith, D. Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients With Varying Levels of Health Literacy Receiving Telemedicine and Standardized Education. Home healthcare now 34, 267–272 (2016).
29. Aponte, J. & Nokes, K. M. Electronic health literacy of older Hispanics with diabetes. Health promotion international 32, 482–489 (2017).
30. Hæsum, L. K. E., Ehlers, L. H. & Hejlesen, O. K. The long-term effects of using telehomecare technology on functional health literacy: results from a randomized trial. Public health 150, 43–50 (2017).
31. Halwas, N., Griebel, L. & Huebner, J. eHealth literacy, Internet and eHealth service usage: a survey among cancer patients and their relatives. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 143, 2291–2299 (2017).
32. Kasparian, N. A. et al. eHealth literacy and preferences for eHealth resources in parents of children with complex CHD. Cardiology in the young 27, 722–730 (2017).
33. Kennedy, C. A. et al. A prospective comparison of telemedicine versus in-person delivery of an interprofessional education program for adults with inflammatory arthritis. Journal of telemedicine and telecare 23, 197–206 (2017).
34. Price-Haywood, E. G., Harden-Barrios, J., Ulep, R. & Luo, Q. eHealth Literacy: Patient Engagement in Identifying Strategies to Encourage Use of Patient Portals Among Older Adults. Population health management 20, 486–494 (2017).
35. Song, L., Tatum, K., Greene, G. & Chen, R. C. eHealth Literacy and Partner Involvement in Treatment Decision Making for Men With Newly Diagnosed Localized Prostate Cancer. Oncology nursing forum 44, 225–233 (2017).
36. Sundaresan, P. et al. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the utility of a patient Decision Aid to improve clinical trial (RAVES 08.03) related decision-making. Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 125, 124–129 (2017).
37. Abutaleb, A. et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Telemedicine Clinical Trial: Impact of Educational Text Messages on Disease-Specific Knowledge Over 1 Year. Inflammatory bowel diseases 24, 2191–2197 (2018).
38. Anderson, L. M. et al. Mobile health intervention for youth with sickle cell disease: Impact on adherence, disease knowledge, and quality of life. Pediatric blood & cancer 65, e27081 (2018).
39. Couture, É. M., Chouinard, M.-C., Fortin, M. & Hudon, C. The relationship between health literacy and patient activation among frequent users of healthcare services: a cross-sectional study. BMC family practice 19, 38 (2018).
40. Heiman, H., Keinki, C. & Huebner, J. EHealth literacy in patients with cancer and their usage of web-based information. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology 144, 1843–1850 (2018).
41. Hoogenbosch, B. et al. Use and the Users of a Patient Portal: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of medical Internet research 20, e262 (2018).
42. Melholt, C. et al. Cardiac patients’ experiences with a telerehabilitation web portal: Implications for eHealth literacy. Patient education and counseling 101, 854–861 (2018).
43. Ochalek, T. A., Heil, S. H., Higgins, S. T., Badger, G. J. & Sigmon, S. C. A novel mHealth application for improving HIV and Hepatitis C knowledge in individuals with opioid use disorder: A pilot study. Drug and alcohol dependence 190, 224–228 (2018).
44. Silverman, J., Krieger, J., Sayre, G. & Nelson, K. The Value of Community Health Workers in Diabetes Management in Low-Income Populations: A Qualitative Study. Journal of community health 43, 842–847 (2018).
45. Stellefson, M. L. et al. Web-based Health Information Seeking and eHealth Literacy among Patients Living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Health communication 33, 1410–1424 (2018).
46. Bailey, C. E. et al. eHealth Literacy in Otolaryngology Patients. The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology 128, 1013–1018 (2019).
47. Böttcher, S. et al. Randomised controlled trial to evaluate the influence of mHealth and eHealth skin cancer prevention education among young organ transplant recipients: the HIPPOlino intervention study. BMJ open 9, e028842 (2019).
48. de Leeuw, R. A. et al. Digital vs face-to-face information provision in patient counselling for prenatal screening: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Prenatal diagnosis 39, 456–463 (2019).
49. Doll, J. A. et al. PREPARED Study: A Study of Shared Decision-Making for Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 12, e005244 (2019).
50. Masoi, T. J. & Kibusi, S. M. Improving pregnant women’s knowledge on danger signs and birth preparedness practices using an interactive mobile messaging alert system in Dodoma region, Tanzania: a controlled quasi experimental study. Reproductive health 16, 177 (2019).
51. Moradi, A., Alavi, S. M., Salimi, M., Nouhjah, S. & Shahvali, E. A. The effect of short message service (SMS) on knowledge and preventive behaviors of diabetic foot ulcer in patients with diabetes type 2. Diabetes & metabolic syndrome 13, 1255–1260 (2019).
52. Hyde, L. L. et al. Electronic Health Literacy Among Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography Medical Imaging Outpatients: Cluster Analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 21, e13423 (2019).
53. Pathak, S., George, N., Monti, D., Robinson, K. & Politi, M. C. Evaluating Adaptation of a Cancer Clinical Trial Decision Aid for Rural Cancer Patients: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education 34, 803–809 (2019).
54. Stellefson, M. et al. Association Between Health Literacy, Electronic Health Literacy, Disease-Specific Knowledge, and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of medical Internet research 21, e12165 (2019).
55. Banbury, A. et al. Adding value to remote monitoring: Co-design of a health literacy intervention for older people with chronic disease delivered by telehealth - The telehealth literacy project. Patient education and counseling 103, 597–606 (2020).
56. Cherid, C. et al. Current level of technology use, health and eHealth literacy in older Canadians with a recent fracture-a survey in orthopedic clinics. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 31, 1333–1340 (2020).
57. Dwinger, S. et al. Effects of telephone-based health coaching on patient-reported outcomes and health behavior change: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one 15, e0236861 (2020).
58. Ghaddar, S., Vatcheva, K. P., Alvarado, S. G. & Mykyta, L. Understanding the Intention to Use Telehealth Services in Underserved Hispanic Border Communities: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of medical Internet research 22, e21012 (2020).
59. Hoogland, A. I. et al. eHealth literacy in older adults with cancer. Journal of geriatric oncology 11, 1020–1022 (2020).
60. Knitza, J. et al. Mobile Health Usage, Preferences, Barriers, and eHealth Literacy in Rheumatology: Patient Survey Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 8, e19661 (2020).
61. Knudsen, M. V. et al. Tele-rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation are comparable in increasing patient activation and health literacy: A pilot study. European journal of cardiovascular nursing : journal of the Working Group on Cardiovascular Nursing of the European Society of Cardiology 19, 376–385 (2020).
62. Murthy, N. et al. Effects of an mHealth voice message service (mMitra) on maternal health knowledge and practices of low-income women in India: findings from a pseudo-randomized controlled trial. BMC public health 20, 820 (2020).
63. Schnitzer, K. et al. Improved Glycemic Control in Adults With Serious Mental Illness and Diabetes With a Behavioral and Educational Intervention. Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 71, 730–733 (2020).
64. Truong, T. M. et al. Assessment of Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Pharmacogenomics Before and After Using a Mock Results Patient Web Portal. Clinical and translational science 13, 78–87 (2020).
65. Tutar Güven, Ş., İşler Dalgiç, A. & Duman, Ö. Evaluation of the efficiency of the web-based epilepsy education program (WEEP) for youth with epilepsy and parents: A randomized controlled trial. Epilepsy & behavior : E&B 111, 107142 (2020).
66. Williams, M. et al. Feasibility, acceptability and cost efficiency of using webinars to deliver first-line patient education for people with Irritable Bowel Syndrome as part of a dietetic-led gastroenterology service in primary care. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association 33, 758–766 (2020).
67. Atmann, O., Werner, C., Linde, K. & Schneider, A. Health literacy and eHealth among adult asthma patients - results of a cross sectional survey. The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma 58, 262–270 (2021).
68. Chenneville, T., Drake, H., Gabbidon, K., Rodriguez, C. & Hightow-Weidman, L. Bijou: Engaging Young MSM in HIV Care Using a Mobile Health Strategy. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care 20, 23259582211030804 (2021).
69. Guo, S. H.-M., Hsing, H.-C., Lin, J.-L. & Lee, C.-C. Relationships Between Mobile eHealth Literacy, Diabetes Self-care, and Glycemic Outcomes in Taiwanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Cross-sectional Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9, e18404 (2021).
70. Kocher, A. et al. Patient and healthcare professional eHealth literacy and needs for systemic sclerosis support: a mixed methods study. RMD open 7, (2021).
71. Maroney, K. et al. eHealth literacy and web-based patient portal usage among kidney and liver transplant recipients. Clinical transplantation 35, e14184 (2021).
72. Rojanasumapong, A. et al. Internet Use, Electronic Health Literacy, and Hypertension Control among the Elderly at an Urban Primary Care Center in Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study. International journal of environmental research and public health 18, (2021).
73. Rush, K. L., Seaton, C., Li, E., Oelke, N. D. & Pesut, B. Rural use of health service and telemedicine during COVID-19: The role of access and eHealth literacy. Health informatics journal 27, 14604582211020064 (2021).
74. Sanders, M. et al. Can a brief peer-led group training intervention improve health literacy in persons living with HIV? Results from a randomized controlled trial. Patient education and counseling 104, 1176–1182 (2021).
75. Schrauben, S. J. et al. Mobile Health (mHealth) Technology: Assessment of Availability, Acceptability, and Use in CKD. American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation 77, 941-950.e1 (2021).
76. Vollbrecht, H. et al. Measuring eHealth Literacy in Urban Hospitalized Patients: Implications for the Post-COVID World. Journal of general internal medicine 36, 251–253 (2021).
77. Xu, R. H., Zhou, L.-M., Wong, E. L.-Y. & Wang, D. The Association Between Patients’ eHealth Literacy and Satisfaction With Shared Decision-making and Well-being: Multicenter Cross-sectional Study. Journal of medical Internet research 23, e26721 (2021).
78. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. (National Academies Press (US), 1990).
79. Community Health Workers. https://www.apha.org/apha-communities/member-sections/community-health-workers.
80. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Chronic diseases and conditions are on the rise. PwC https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/healthcare/emerging-trends-pwc-healthcare/chronic-diseases.html.
81. Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (2021).
82. Walters, R., Leslie, S. J., Polson, R., Cusack, T. & Gorely, T. Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 20, 1040 (2020).
83. Greene, J. C., Haun, J. N., French, D. D., Chambers, S. L. & Roswell, R. H. Reduced Hospitalizations, Emergency Room Visits, and Costs Associated with a Web-Based Health Literacy, Aligned-Incentive Intervention: Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21, e14772 (2019).
84. Aria, R. & Archer, N. An online mobile/desktop application for supporting sustainable chronic disease self-management and lifestyle change. Health Informatics J 26, 2860–2876 (2020).
85. Dunn, P. & Conard, S. Commentary: A new model for chronic care to improve patient’s skill. School of Health Sciences Publications 2, (2018).
86. The Newest Vital Sign | Pfizer. https://www.pfizer.com/products/medicine-safety/health-literacy/nvs-toolkit.
87. Assessing Health Literacy - Health Sciences Library - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://hsl.lib.unc.edu/health-literacy/assessing-health-literacy/.
88. Norman, C. D. & Skinner, H. A. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res 8, e27 (2006).
89. van der Vaart, R. et al. Does the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? Validation of a Dutch version of the eHEALS in two adult populations. J Med Internet Res 13, e86 (2011).
90. Monkman, H. et al. Are Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy the Same or Different? MEDINFO 2017: Precision Healthcare through Informatics 178–182 (2017) doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-830-3-178.
91. Birkhäuer, J. et al. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 12, e0170988 (2017).
92. Chen, X. et al. Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information. J Health Commun 23, 724–734 (2018).
93. What is Patient and Public Involvement and Public Engagement? — SPCR. https://www.spcr.nihr.ac.uk/PPI/what-is-patient-and-public-involvement-and-engagement.
94. Howard Wilsher, S., Brainard, J., Loke, Y. & Salter, C. Patient and public involvement in health literacy interventions: a mapping review. Research Involvement and Engagement 3, 31 (2017).
95. Krishnan, A., Tandon, R. & Nongkynrih, B. Relevance of Community-Based Participatory Research in Community Medicine Training. Indian J Community Med 45, 256–260 (2020).
96. Kwon, S. C., Tandon, S. D., Islam, N., Riley, L. & Trinh-Shevrin, C. Applying a community-based participatory research framework to patient and family engagement in the development of patient-centered outcomes research and practice. Transl Behav Med 8, 683–691 (2017).
97. Hartzler, A. L., Tuzzio, L., Hsu, C. & Wagner, E. H. Roles and Functions of Community Health Workers in Primary Care. Ann Fam Med 16, 240–245 (2018).
98. Hartmann, M., Bäzner, E., Wild, B., Eisler, I. & Herzog, W. Effects of interventions involving the family in the treatment of adult patients with chronic physical diseases: a meta-analysis. Psychother Psychosom 79, 136–148 (2010).
99. Jo, A., Ji Seo, E. & Son, Y. The roles of health literacy and social support in improving adherence to self‐care behaviours among older adults with heart failure. Nurs Open 7, 2039–2046 (2020).
100. Tan, S. S.-L. & Goonawardene, N. Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 19, e9 (2017).
101. Daraz, L. et al. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. J Gen Intern Med 34, 1884–1891 (2019).
102. Liu, L., Qian, X., Chen, Z. & He, T. Health literacy and its effect on chronic disease prevention: evidence from China’s data. BMC Public Health 20, 690 (2020).
103. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9 & PHQ-2). https://www.apa.org/pi/about/publications/caregivers/practice-settings/assessment/tools/patient-health.
104. Warring, C. D. et al. Implementation of a Routine Health Literacy Assessment at an Academic Medical Center. J Healthc Qual 40, 247–255 (2018).
105. Cawthon, C., Mion, L. C., Willens, D. E., Roumie, C. L. & Kripalani, S. Implementing Routine Health Literacy Assessment in Hospital and Primary Care Patients. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 40, 68–76 (2014).