4.1 Article

Patient education and health literacy

期刊

MUSCULOSKELETAL SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 120-127

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2018.06.004

关键词

Patient education; Biopsychosocial; Health literacy; Patient centred care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Patient education is a relatively new science within the field of health care. In the past it consisted mainly of the transfer of knowledge and mostly biomedically based advice. Research has shown this to not be effective and sometimes counterproductive. As health care has moved away from applying a traditional paternalistic approach of 'doctor knows best' to a patient-centred care approach, patient education must be tailored to meet persons' individual needs. Purpose: The purpose of this master paper is to increase awareness of patients' health literacy levels. Health literacy is linked to literacy and entails people's knowledge, motivation and competences to access, understand, appraise and apply health information in order to make judgements and take decisions in everyday life concerning health care, disease prevention and health promotion to maintain or improve quality of life during the life course. Many patients have low health literacy skills, and have difficulty with reading, writing, numeracy, communication, and, increasingly, the use of electronic technology, which impede access to and understanding of health care information. Implications: Multiple professional organizations recommend using universal health literacy precautions to provide understandable and accessible information to all patients, regardless of their literacy or education levels. This includes avoiding medical jargon, breaking down information or instructions into small concrete steps, limiting the focus of a visit to three key points or tasks, and assessing for comprehension by using the teach back cycle. Printed information should be written at or below sixth-grade reading level. Visual aids can enhance patient understanding.

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

4.1
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