4.5 Article

Health literacy and decision making styles for complex antithrombotic therapy among older multimorbid adults

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 499-504

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.015

关键词

Aging; Drugs; Prevention; Literacy; Doctor-patient relationship

资金

  1. Houston Veterans Affairs Health Sciences Research and Development Center of Excellence [HFP90-020]
  2. National Institute on Aging [K23AG027144]
  3. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  4. American Gastroenterological Association Foundation-Sucampo-Association
  5. Department of Veterans Affairs [VA IIR 08-028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of functional health literacy (FHL) on preferences for decision-making; and among those initially preferring a passive decision-making role, to explore how preferences change if their physician actively encourages their involvement. Methods: Consecutive older adults with cardiovascular disease receiving complex antithrombotic therapy completed a comprehensive assessment including measures of FHL and preferences for shared decision making. Results: Half of all participants had inadequate or marginal FHL. Those with inadequate FHL were more likely (P = 0.01) to prefer passive rather than active decision making styles even after controlling for age, education, and numeracy. However, 40% of patients preferring passive styles had adequate FHL and these patients were significantly more likely to change their preference to more active styles (odds ratio = 7.17, P < .01) if their physician was more supportive or encouraged participation. Conclusions: Screening FHL can provide insight into patients' preferences for active participation in decision making. Clinicians' encouragement of participation can increase engagement by patients with adequate FHL. Practice implications: We propose an algorithm for screening FHL and preferences for participating in decisions about complex medication regimens. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据