Interventions for improving health literacy among older people: a systematic review

Abstract

Background: Health literacy(HL) is defined as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain process and understand basic health information and services required for making appropriate health decisions. Effective interventions to improve older people's HL have become increasingly important. The purpose of this study is to conduct a review of interventions aimed at enhancing the HL of older people.

Methodology: Relevant information was gathered from various databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Additionally, a manual search of related journals and Google Scholar, a search of the reference lists of selected articles, and a search of unpublished sources were also conducted up to 30 August 2024. Reporting quality assessment was performed using CONSORT: 2010, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies, and "Quality Assessment Criteria for Survey Research Reports".

Results: A total of 21 articles were included in this study. The interventions conducted in high-income countries were found to be more effective compared to those conducted in middle and low-income countries. Furthermore, interventions carried out at the community level were more effective than those performed in nursing homes. Educational interventions were more effective than lifestyle modification interventions, and interventions carried out in a single dimension were more effective than multidimensional interventions. Additionally, interventions that utilized technology were found to be more effective.

Conclusion: Based on the findings, community-based interventions that encompass a one-dimensional approach, incorporating the use of technology and considering the duration of the intervention, are more recommended.

Keywords: Aging; Health knowledge; Health literacy; Intervention; Older people.

Fig. 1

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers) **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Fig. 2

Design of studies aimed at enhancing the health literacy of the Older adults **CRT: Cluster Randomized Trial