You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Health literacy interventions for informal caregivers: systematic review

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Systematic review
Health literacy interventions for informal caregivers: systematic review
  1. Eva Yuen1,2,
  2. Carlene Wilson3,4,5,
  3. Joanne Adams6,
  4. Tejashree Kangutkar7,
  5. Patricia M Livingston1,
  6. Victoria M White8,
  7. Cherene Ockerby2 and
  8. Alison Hutchinson1,9
  1. 1School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3School of Psychology and Public Health, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5Psycho-Oncology Research Unit, Olivia Newton-John Cancer, Wellness and Research Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
  7. 7La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
  8. 8School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
  9. 9Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Eva Yuen, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; e.yuen{at}deakin.edu.au

Abstract

Aim The aim of the systematic review was to identify conceptual models and interventions designed to improve health literacy in caregivers of adults with a chronic disease/disability.

Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for relevant literature. Articles were included if they focused on adults who provided informal care to someone aged 18+ with a chronic disease/disability. Quantitative studies were included if they reported an intervention designed to improve caregiver health literacy (CHL) and assessed outcomes using a validated measure of health literacy. Qualitative and mixed method studies were included if they described a conceptual model or framework of CHL or developed/assessed the feasibility of an intervention. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.

Results Eleven studies were included. Five studies used pre–post design to assess outcomes of an intervention; four described intervention development and/or pilot testing; two described conceptual models. Two of five studies reported pre–post intervention improvements in CHL; one reported an improvement in one of nine health literacy domains; two reported no improvements following intervention. Interventions predominantly aimed to improve: caregiver understanding of the disease, treatment and potential outcomes, day-to-day care, self-care and health provider engagement. Few interventions targeted broader interpersonal and health service factors identified as influencing CHL.

Discussion Evidence on the development and assessment of comprehensive CHL interventions is scarce. Recommendations include the development of interventions that are guided by a CHL framework to ensure they address individual, interpersonal and health service/provider factors that influence CHL.

  • Supportive care
  • Chronic conditions
  • Family management
  • Quality of life
  • Social care

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.

https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004513

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EY: Conceptualisation; Funding Acquisition; Methodology; Data Curation; Data Analysis; Data Interpretation; Project Administration; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing; Guarantor. CW: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Data Curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. JA: Data Curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. TK: Data Curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. PML: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Data Curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. VMW: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Data Curation; Data interpretation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. CO: Data Curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing. AH: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Data Curation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review and editing.

    • Funding EY was supported by a Deakin University Executive Dean’s Health Research Fellowship. The funders had no role in the conception or development of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.