4.5 Article

Health Literacy Predicts Morbidity and Mortality in Rural Patients With Heart Failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages 612-618

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.04.004

Keywords

Health literacy; heart failure; rural

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  2. National Institute of Nursing Research [5R01HL83176-5]
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL083176] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Patients hospitalized with heart failure are often readmitted. Health literacy may play a substantial role in the high rate of readmissions. The purpose of this study was to examine the association of health literacy with the composite end point of heart failure readmission rates and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure living in rural areas. Methods and Results: Rural adults (n = 575), hospitalized for heart failure within the past 6 months, completed the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOMA) to measure health literacy and were followed for >= 2 years. The percentage of patients with the end point of heart failure readmission or all-cause death was different (P = .001) among the 3 STOFHLA score levels. Unadjusted analysis revealed that patients with inadequate and marginal health literacy were 1.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-2.63; P < .001) times, and 1.91 (95% CI 1.36-2.67; P < .001) times, respectively, more likely to experience the outcome. After adjustment for covariates, health literacy remained a predictor of outcomes. Of the other covariates, worse functional class, higher comorbidity burden, and higher depression score predicted worse outcomes. Conclusions: Inadequate or marginal health literacy is a risk factor for heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality among rural patients with heart failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available