Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.

Approximately one-third of adults in the United States (U.S.) have limited health literacy. Those with limited health literacy often have difficultly navigating the health care environment, including navigating care across the cancer continuum (e.g., prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment). Evidence-based interventions to assist adults with limited health literacy improve health outcomes; however, little is known about health literacy interventions in the context of cancer and their impact on cancer-specific health outcomes. The purpose of this review was to identify and characterize the literature on health literacy interventions across the cancer care continuum. Specifically, our aim was to review the strength of evidence, outcomes assessed, and intervention modalities within the existing literature reporting health literacy interventions in cancer. Our search yielded 1036 records (prevention/screening n = 174; diagnosis/treatment n = 862). Following deduplication and review for inclusion criteria, we analyzed 87 records of intervention studies reporting health literacy outcomes, including 45 pilot studies (prevention/screening n = 24; diagnosis/treatment n = 21) and 42 randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental trials (prevention/screening n = 31; diagnosis/treatment n = 11). This literature included 36 unique interventions (prevention/screening n = 28; diagnosis/treatment n = 8), mostly in the formative stages of intervention development, with few assessments of evidence-based interventions. These gaps in the literature necessitate further research in the development and implementation of evidence-based health literacy interventions to improve cancer outcomes.

Interpretation of time-to-event outcomes in randomized trials: an online randomized experiment.

Background: Multiple features in the presentation of randomized controlled trial (RCT) results are known to influence comprehension and interpretation. We aimed to compare interpretation of cancer RCTs with time-to-event outcomes when the reported treatment effect measure is the hazard ratio (HR), difference in restricted mean survival times (RMSTD), or both (HR+RMSTD). We also assessed the prevalence of misinterpretation of the HR. Methods: We carried out a randomized experiment. We selected 15 cancer RCTs with statistically significant treatment effects for the primary outcome. We masked each abstract and created three versions reporting either the HR, RMSTD, or HR+RMSTD. We randomized corresponding authors of RCTs and medical residents and fellows to one of 15 abstracts and one of 3 versions. We asked how beneficial the experimental treatment was (0-10 Likert scale). All participants answered a multiple-choice question about interpretation of the HR. Participants were unaware of the study purpose. Results: We randomly allocated 160 participants to evaluate an abstract reporting the HR, 154 to the RMSTD, and 155 to both HR+RMSTD. The mean Likert score was statistically significantly lower in the RMSTD group when compared with the HR group (mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval, -1.3 to -0.4, P < 0.01) and when compared with the HR+RMSTD group (difference -0.6, -1.1 to -0.1, P = 0.05). In all, 47.2% (42.7%-51.8%) of participants misinterpreted the HR, with 40% equating it with a reduction in absolute risk. Conclusion: Misinterpretation of the HR is common. Participants judged experimental treatments to be less beneficial when presented with RMSTD when compared with HR. We recommend that authors present RMST-based measures alongside the HR in reports of RCT results.