Person-Centered Models for Cardiovascular Care: A Review of the Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and globally. Disease burden continues to escalate despite technological advances associated with improved life expectancy and quality of life. As a result, longer life is associated with multiple chronic cardiovascular conditions. Clinical guidelines provide recommendations without considering prevalent scenarios of multimorbidity and health system complexities that affect practical adoption. The diversity of personal preferences, cultures, and lifestyles that make up one's social and environmental context is often overlooked in ongoing care planning for symptom management and health behavior support, hindering adoption and compromising patient outcomes, particularly in groups at high risk. The purpose of this scientific statement was to describe the characteristics and reported outcomes in existing person-centered care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions. We conducted a scoping review using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2022. A range of study designs with a defined aim to systematically evaluate care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions were included. Models were selected on the basis of their stated use of evidence-based guidelines, clinical decision support tools, systematic evaluation processes, and inclusion of the patient's perspective in defining the plan of care. Findings reflected variation in methodological approach, outcome measures, and care processes used across models. Evidence to support optimal care delivery models remains limited by inconsistencies in approach, variation in reimbursement, and inability of health systems to meet the needs of patients with chronic, complex cardiovascular conditions.

Prevalence of and factors associated with limited health literacy in spine patients.

BACKGROUND: Limited health literacy exacerbates health inequity and has serious implications for patient care. It hinders successful communication and comprehension of relevant health information, which can lead to suboptimal care. Despite the evidence regarding the significance of health literacy, the topic has received little consideration in orthopedic spine patients. PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of and factors associated with limited health literacy among outpatients presenting to a tertiary urban academic hospital-based orthopedic spine center. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectionals. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients 18 years of age or older seen at a tertiary urban academic hospital-based multi-surgeon outpatient spine center. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy assessment. METHODS: Between December 2021 and March 2022, 447 consecutive English-speaking patients over the age of 18 years and new to the outpatient spine clinic were approached for participation in a cross-sectional survey study, of which 405 agreed to participate. Patients completed the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy assessment tool, the Rapid Estimation of Adult Literacy in Medicine Short Form (REALM-SF), and a sociodemographic survey (including race/ethnicity, level of education, employment status, income, and marital status). The NVS scores were divided into limited (0-3) and adequate (4-6) health literacy. REALM-SF scores were classified into reading levels below ninth grade (0-6) or at least ninth grade (7). Additional demographic data was extracted from patient records. Online mapping tools were used to collect the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) for each patient. Subsequently, multivariable regression modeling was performed to identify independent factors associated with limited health literacy. RESULTS: The prevalence of limited health literacy in patients presenting to an urban academic outpatient spine center was 33% (135/405). Unadjusted analysis found that patients who were socioeconomically disadvantaged (eg, unemployed, lower household income, publicly insured and higher SVI) and had more unfavorable social determinant of health features (eg, housing concerns, higher ADI, less years of education, below ninth grade reading level, unmarried) had high rates of limited health literacy. Adjusted regression analysis demonstrated that limited health literacy was independently associated with higher ADI state decile, living less than 10 years at current address, having housing concerns, not being employed, non-native English speaking, having less years of education and below ninth grade reading level. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a substantial portion of the patients presenting to an outpatient spine center have limited health literacy, more so if they are socially disadvantaged. Future efforts should investigate the impact of limited health literacy on access to care, treatment outcomes and health care utilization in orthopedic patients. Neighborhood social vulnerability measures may be a feasible way to identify patients at risk of limited health literacy in clinical practice and offer opportunities for tailored patient care. This may contribute to prioritizing the mitigation of disparities and aid in the development of meaningful interventions to improve health equity in orthopedics.