4.6 Article

Health literacy and use of outpatient physician services by Medicare managed care enrollees

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 215-220

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.21130.x

关键词

educational status; emergency medicine; literacy; office visits

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether inadequate functional health literacy adversely affects use of physician outpatient services. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: New Medicare managed care enrollees age 65 or older in 4 U.S. cities (N = 3,260). MEASUAREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured functional health literacy using the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. Administrative data were used to determine the time to first physician visit and the total number of visits during the 12 months after enrollment. The time until first visit, the proportion without any visit, and adjusted mean visits during the year after enrollment were unrelated to health literacy in crude and multivariate analyses. Participants with inadequate and marginal health literacy were more likely to have an emergency department (ED) visit than those with adequate health literacy (30.4%, 27.6%, and 21.8%, respectively; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, the adjusted relative risk of having 2 or more ED visits was 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 2.02) for enrollees with marginal health literacy and 1.34 (1.00 to 1.79) for those with inadequate health literacy compared to participants with adequate health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate health literacy was not independently associated with the mean number of visits or the time to a first visit. This suggests that inadequate literacy is not a major barrier to accessing outpatient health care. Nevertheless, the higher rates of ED use by persons with low literacy may be caused by real or perceived barriers to using their usual source of outpatient care.

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

4.6
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