How socioeconomically disadvantaged people access, understand, appraise, and apply health information: A qualitative study exploring health literacy skills.

OBJECTIVES: Health literacy, or a person's competence to access, understand, appraise and apply health information, can be considered a mediating factor between socioeconomic characteristics and health disparities. Socioeconomically disadvantaged people in particular present with less health literacy skills. To develop targeted interventions tailored to their real needs, it is important to understand how they function and what difficulties they encounter when dealing with health information. The purpose of this study was to explore their experiences when accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying health information in their everyday lives. METHODS: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 12 socioeconomically disadvantaged adults living in the community in Switzerland (age range: 44-60 years old). RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the interviews yielded four themes, describing the health literacy processes of participants, related barriers, and compensatory strategies used: Financial insecurity triggers the need for health information; Pathway 1: Physicians as ideal (but expensive) interlocutors; Pathway 2: The internet as a suboptimal alternative; and Pathway 3: Relatives as a default resource. The progression of socioeconomically disadvantaged people in the health literacy process is like an 'obstacle course', with numerous steps taken backwards before they can develop compensatory strategies to overcome the barriers to obtaining health information. CONCLUSIONS: Financial deprivation seems to be the most important factor contributing to health literacy barriers. Appraising health information is the health literacy skill with which socioeconomically disadvantaged people struggle the most. Physician-based, individual skills-based, organizational, and policy-based interventions are needed to help them overcome their health literacy challenges.

Width of margins in phyllodes tumors of the breast: the controversy drags on?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Phyllodes tumors (PT) of the breast are rare fibroepithelial neoplasms. Information is controversial in the literature regarding to the optimal surgical management. Most studies suggested margins of at least 10 mm while some recent studies suggested narrower margins without an increased risk of local recurrences (LR) and distant metastases (DM). The objective of this systematic review was to identify and compare studies that assessed these different practices. METHODS: A systematic review was performed through five databases up to April 2019. Studies exploring the association between the width of margins, subtypes of PT, and the LR and DM rates were considered for inclusion. A statistical model for analyzing sparse data and rare events was used. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met eligibility criteria and were selected. Considering a threshold of 10 mm (margins < 10 vs margins ≥ 10 mm), the 5-year incidence rate of LR was estimated to be 5.22 vs. 3.63 (diff. -1.59) per 100 person-years for benign PT, 9.60 vs. 7.33 (diff. -2.27) for borderline PT, and 28.58 vs. 21.84 (diff. -6.74) for malignant PT. For DM, it was estimated to be 0.88 vs. 0.86 (diff. -0.02) for benign PT, 1.61 vs. 1.74 (diff. 0.13) for borderline PT, and 4.80 vs 5.18 (diff. 0.38) for malignant PT. The data for a threshold of 1 mm were not sufficient to draw any conclusions. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of tumor grade, we found that DM was a rarer event than LR. Malignant PT had the highest incidence rate of LR and DM. This meta-analysis found a clear association between width of margins and LR rates. Whatever the tumor grade, surgical margins ≥ 10 mm guaranteed a lower risk of LR than margins < 10 mm. On the other hand, the width of margin did not influence the apparition of DM.

Effects of health literacy interventions on health-related outcomes in socioeconomically disadvantaged adults living in the community: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were: i) to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness on health-related outcomes of health literacy interventions for enabling socioeconomically disadvantaged people living in the community to access, understand, appraise and apply health information; and ii) to identify components of health literacy interventions associated with improved health-related outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Health literacy is defined as a person's competence in accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health information in order to make sound health decisions. A high level of health literacy is positively related to better health outcomes. However, nearly half of the American and European populations have low health literacy levels. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in particular present with the weakest health literacy levels, suggesting that differences in health literacy levels contribute to health disparities. Therefore, there is a need to understand the conditions under which health literacy interventions aiming at improving health-related outcomes among socioeconomically disadvantaged people can be implemented. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies on socioeconomically disadvantaged adults living in the community identified using the socially stratifying PROGRESS factors (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital).This review considered studies evaluating the following interventions: i) targeting health literacy based on either a clinical and/or a public health approach, ii) delivered at the individual, interpersonal, community or societal level, iii) delivered by any healthcare/social work professional, and iv) using a single or multicomponent strategy. The comparator was no treatment, standard care or a variation of the intervention. All randomized and non-randomized controlled trials as well as quasi-experimental designs were included. Outcomes considered were: i) health-related quality of life and health-related outcomes, ii) health behavior outcomes, and iii) outcomes related to the access and use of healthcare services. METHODS: A three-step strategy was conducted for primary research published up to May 2018 across seven databases without any language restriction. A search for gray literature was also conducted. Titles and abstracts were screened for assessment against the inclusion criteria. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved in full and then assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal was undertaken using the standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Data were extracted from included studies using standardized data extraction tools from JBI. A meta-analysis was not possible; findings have been presented in a narrative form. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the review. Three studies addressed the health literacy competency of understanding health information, and 18 addressed the competency of applying health information. Thirteen studies were found as effective based on a variety of health-related outcomes (mainly clinical outcomes), preventive health practices and behaviors, and health-promoting behaviors. Results enabled identification of some effective intervention operational components, including cultural appropriateness, tailoring, skills building, goal setting and active discussions. Multi-faceted interventions, combining both an information transfer medium and contact with an interventionist, appear to be more effective than single modality interventions. The use of an appropriate theoretical foundation is also an important factor for successful interventions. CONCLUSION: To improve health-related outcomes among socioeconomically disadvantaged people, health literacy interventions are more likely to be successful if they are theory-based, are multi-faceted and use person-centered operational components such as cultural appropriateness, tailoring, skills building, goal setting and active discussions.

Does health literacy mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and health disparities? Integrative review.

While socioeconomic disparities are among the most fundamental causes of health disparities, socioeconomic status (SES) does not impact health directly. One of the potential mediating factors that link SES and health is health literacy (HL). Yet although HL can be considered a modifiable risk factor of socioeconomic disparities in health, the relationship between SES, HL and health disparities is not well understood. This study reviewed the evidence regarding the mediating role of HL in the relationship between socioeconomic and health disparities. Medline, Cinahl, Embase, PsychInfo, Eric, Web of Science, Google, Google Scholar, Mednar, Doaj and Worldcat were used to retrieve studies that specifically addressed socioeconomic and socio-demographic factors related to low HL levels, as well as the mediating role of HL in the relationship between SES and disparities in health outcomes. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality. Sixteen published studies were retained for inclusion and content analyzed using the constant comparison method. The review indicates that disadvantaged social and socioeconomic conditions contribute to low HL levels, whereby low SES, and particularly educational attainment, is the most important determinant of HL, and that HL mediates the relationship between SES and health status, quality of life, specific health-related outcomes, health behaviors and use of preventive services. HL can be considered as a modifiable risk factor of socioeconomic disparities in health. Enhancing the level of HL in the population or making health services more accessible to people with low HL may be a means to reach a greater equity in health.

Facilitating problem-based learning among undergraduate nursing students: A qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on the perspective of undergraduate nursing students on facilitating elements that contribute to their success with PBL. DESIGN: a qualitative systematic review of the literature according to meta-aggregative methodology using the JBI SUMARI system was conducted. DATA SOURCES: Data was collected across CINAHL, Medline, Embase, Eric, Teacher Reference Center and reference lists. RESEARCH METHODS: Out of 378 articles, 101 were retrieved for examination and eight were retained after methodological analysis. RESULTS: 51 findings, matched with a verbatim, were extracted and aggregated in five categories: 1) in PBL, the nursing tutor models clinical reasoning and leadership skills; 2) the quality of group interactions is critical to the success of nursing students with PBL; 3) nursing students go through the process of learning with PBL; 4) through PBL, nursing students acquire skills that foster clinical reasoning; and 5) when the PBL method is used as intended, nursing students understand its purpose and process. These categories were aggregated in two syntheses worded as recommendation for practice. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesized recommendations are: 1) tutors should be trained to effectively guide the team work of undergraduate nursing students along the PBL process in order for them to achieve its goal; and 2) nursing students should be securely introduced to PBL and experience the development of their clinical reasoning through PBL. Future research should focus on the strategies undergraduate nursing students use to succeed with PBL and the effectiveness of PBL in enhancing critical thinking and collaboration skills.