Health Literacy Among Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Health literacy is the extent to which patients are able to understand and act upon health information. This concept is important for surgeons as their patients have to comprehend the nature, risks and benefits of surgical procedures, adhere to perioperative instructions, and make complex care decisions about interventions. Our review aimed to determine the prevalence of limited health literacy of the surgical patient population. A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed from inception until January 14th 2017 for experimental and observational studies reporting surgical patients’ health literacy measurement. Overall pooled proportion of surgical patients with limited health literacy was calculated using a random-effects model and methodologic quality was assessed. A total of 40 studies representing 18,895 surgical patients were included in our quantitative synthesis. Pooled estimate of limited health literacy was 31.7% (95%CI 24.7–39.2%, I2 99.0%). There was low risk of bias among the majority of the 51 studies included in the qualitative synthesis. Statistical heterogeneity could not be fully accounted for by methodologic quality or patient and surgical characteristics. However, some of the heterogeneity was accounted by measurement tool [combined proportions with the REALM and NVS of 35.6 (95%CI 31.5–39.9, I2 73.0%)]. A number of different health literacy measurement tools were used (19 overall). Our review demonstrates a high prevalence of limited health literacy among surgical patients with considerable heterogeneity. Our findings suggest the importance of recognizing and addressing surgical patients with limited health literacy and the need for standardization in measurement tools.
The contents of this article were developed under a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship, awarded to support Mélissa Roy’s graduate degree.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
- 2.Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Literacy, Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 3.JAMA Evidence (2017) The rational clinical examination: evidence-based clinical diagnosis. Health literacy. http://jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=845§ionid=61357668. Accessed 2 Oct 2017
- 4.Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE et al (2011) Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review. Evid Rep Technol Assess 199:1–941Google Scholar
- 11.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2017) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006483. Accessed 12 Nov 2017
- 16.The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 7 Mar 2017
- 31.Menendez ME, Mudgal CS, Jupiter JB et al (2015) Health literacy in hand surgery patients: a cross-sectional survey. J Hand Surg Am 40:798.e2–804.e2Google Scholar
- 47.Haghighi ST, Lamyian M, Granpaye L (2015) Assessment of the level of health literacy among fertile Iranian women with breast cancer. Electron Physician 7:1359–1364Google Scholar
- 78.Williams MV, Davis T, Parker RM et al (2002) The role of health literacy in patient–physician communication. Fam Med 34:383–389Google Scholar