ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between health literacy and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and to assess the differential effects by health literacy level of a nurse-coordinated secondary prevention program (NCPP) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Data were collected in two medical centres participating in the RESPONSE trial (Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists). CVD risk profiles were assessed at baseline and 12-month follow-up using the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE). Health literacy was assessed by the short Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM-D) and the Newest Vital Sign (NVS-D); self-reported health literacy was evaluated by the Set of Brief Screening Questions (SBSQ-D). RESULTS: Among 201 CAD patients, 18% exhibited reading difficulties, 52% had difficulty understanding and applying written information, and 5% scored low on self-reported health literacy. Patients with low NVS-D scores had a higher CVD risk [mean SCORE 5.2 (SD 4.8) versus 3.3 (SD 4.1), p < 0.01]. Nurse-coordinated care seemed to reduce CVD risk irrespective of health literacy levels without significant differences. CONCLUSION: Inadequate health literacy is prevalent in CAD patients in the Netherlands, and is associated with less favourable CVD risk profiles. Where many other forms of CVD prevention fail, nurse-coordinated care seems to be effective among patients with inadequate health literacy.
ABSTRACT
Health literacy measures for use in clinical-epidemiological research have all been developed outside Europe. In the absence of validated Dutch measures, we evaluated the cross-cultural applicability of the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), the Set of Brief Screening Questions (SBSQ), and the measure of Functional Communicative and Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL). Each measure was translated into Dutch following standardized procedures. We assessed feasibility, internal consistency, and construct validity among patients with coronary artery disease (n = 201) and patients with diabetes type 2 (n = 88). Patients expressed most problems in responding to the NVS-D. They were not familiar with the type of food label and had difficulties calculating in portions instead of grams. The FCCHL-D items seemed too theoretical for many patients. Cronbach's alpha was acceptable for all measures. Correlation patterns between the measures were moderately coherent with a priori hypotheses. All translated measures were able to distinguish between high- and low-educated groups of patients, with the NVS-D performing best. Despite reasonable psychometric properties as demonstrated so far, these measures need to be further developed in order to increase applicability for assessing health literacy in clinical-epidemiological research in the Netherlands.