Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2005 Nov;20(11):1001-7.
doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00189.x.

Physician notification of their diabetes patients' limited health literacy. A randomized, controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Physician notification of their diabetes patients' limited health literacy. A randomized, controlled trial

Hilary K Seligman et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Nov.

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Many patients with chronic disease have limited health literacy (HL). Because physicians have difficulty identifying these patients, some experts recommend instituting screening programs in clinical settings. It is unclear if notifying physicians of patients' limited HL improves care processes or outcomes.

Objective: To determine whether notifying physicians of their patients' limited HL affects physician behavior, physician satisfaction, or patient self-efficacy.

Design: We screened all patients for limited HL and randomized physicians to be notified if their patients had limited HL skills.

Participants: Sixty-three primary care physicians affiliated with a public hospital and 182 diabetic patients with limited HL.

Measurements: After their visit, physicians reported their management strategies, satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and attitudes toward HL screening. We also assessed patients' self-efficacy, feelings regarding HL screening's usefulness, and glycemic control.

Results: Intervention physicians were more likely than control physicians to use management strategies recommended for patients with limited HL (OR 3.2, P=.04). However, intervention physicians felt less satisfied with their visits (81% vs 93%, P=.01) and marginally less effective (38% vs 53%, P=.10). Intervention and control patients' post-visit self-efficacy scores were similar (12.6 vs 12.9, P=.6). Sixty-four percent of intervention physicians and 96% of patients felt HL screening was useful.

Conclusions: Physicians are responsive to receiving notification of their patients' limited HL, and patients support the potential utility of HL screening. However, instituting screening programs without specific training and/or system-wide support for physicians and patients is unlikely to be a powerful tool in improving diabetes outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Enrollment and follow-up. HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Institute of Medicine., editor. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004. - PubMed
    1. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs AMA., editor. Health literacy report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA. 1999;281:552–7. - PubMed
    1. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA. 1995;274:1677–82. - PubMed
    1. Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA. 1999;281:545–51. - PubMed
    1. Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Literacy and Health Outcomes. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004.

Publication types