RESUMO
Health literacy may influence the efficacy of print-based public health interventions. A key part of the U.K. cancer control strategy is to provide information to the public on earlier diagnoses with a view to improving the United Kingdom's relatively poor 1-year cancer survival statistics. This study examined the effect of health literacy on the efficacy of a gynecological cancer information leaflet. Participants (n = 451) were recruited from 17 Cancer Research UK events. Health literacy was assessed with the Newest Vital Sign test. Gynecological cancer symptom awareness and barriers to medical help seeking were assessed before and after participants read the leaflet. Symptom awareness improved, and barriers to medical help seeking were reduced (ps < .001). Symptom awareness was lower in individuals in lower health literacy groups, both at baseline and at follow-up (p < .05, p < .001, respectively), but there were no significant differences in barriers to medical help seeking at either time point (p > .05). As predicted, individuals with lower health literacy benefited less after exposure to the leaflet (ps < .01 for interactions). Despite careful consideration of information design principles in the development of the leaflet, more intensive efforts may be required to ensure that inequalities are not exacerbated by reliance on print-based public health interventions.
Assuntos
Neoplasias dos Genitais Femininos/complicações , Educação em Saúde/métodos , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Letramento em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Folhetos , Avaliação de Sintomas , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Reino Unido , Adulto JovemRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate healthcare experiences of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and determine whether a previous survey and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) management guidelines brought improvements. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of Macular Society members in 2013 compared with previous 1999 survey. SETTING: UK Postal Questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: 1169 respondents in 2013 (1187 in 1999). INTERVENTION: Publication of 1999 survey results (2002), and RCOphth AMD guidelines (2009). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents answered questions about experiences at diagnosis. Five questions were replicated from the 1999 survey for direct comparison in the 2013 survey which included additional questions based on 2009 RCOphth recommendations for information and support provision for patients with AMD. RESULTS: Most 2013 survey respondents were given the name of their macular condition (91%), felt the healthcare professional was interested in them (71%) and were satisfied overall with the diagnostic consultation (76%). These outcomes show significant improvement since 1999. Within the 2013 sample, multivariable analyses showed gradual trends of improvement over time in: provision of written information, Macular Society information and receiving appropriate help, support and advice at diagnosis. Only overall satisfaction with the diagnostic consultation (but not the other nine areas of information and support provision studied) significantly improved in the time after publication of the RCOphth 2009 guidelines. There were no significant improvements associated with the publication of the 1999 survey results. Low information and support provision remained, for example, 44% of respondents diagnosed after the RCOphth 2009 guidelines reported not receiving information on what to do if vision deteriorated. Lack of such information at diagnosis was significantly associated with registration as sight impaired (p<0.01). Reports of general practitioner (GP) knowledge of AMD remained low: 39% reported their GP was 'not at all well informed'. The 2013 respondents reported lower levels of help and support from GPs than 1999 respondents (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with AMD after 1999 (vs before 1999) reported better experiences at diagnostic consultation. However, information and support provision at diagnosis, and satisfaction with GPs remained low.