Evaluation of an Australian Health Literacy Program Delivered in Adult Education Settings.

McCaffery, KJ; Morony, S; Muscat, DM; Hayen, A; Shepherd, HL; Dhillon, HM; Smith, SK; Cvejic, E; Meshreky, W; Luxford, K; Nutbeam, D

Evaluation of an Australian Health Literacy Program Delivered in Adult Education Settings.

McCaffery, KJ Morony, S Muscat, DM Hayen, A

Shepherd, HL Dhillon, HM Smith, SK Cvejic, E Meshreky, W Luxford, K Nutbeam, D

Permalink

Publisher:: SLACK, Inc.
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Health Lit Res Pract, 2019, 3, (3 Suppl), pp. S42-S57
Issue Date:: 2019-07

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (1.31 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	McCaffery, KJ
dc.contributor.author	Morony, S
dc.contributor.author	Muscat, DM
dc.contributor.author	Hayen, A https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4046-8030
dc.contributor.author	Shepherd, HL
dc.contributor.author	Dhillon, HM
dc.contributor.author	Smith, SK
dc.contributor.author	Cvejic, E
dc.contributor.author	Meshreky, W
dc.contributor.author	Luxford, K
dc.contributor.author	Nutbeam, D
dc.date.accessioned	2022-08-17T13:07:24Z
dc.date.available	2019-03-05
dc.date.available	2022-08-17T13:07:24Z
dc.date.issued	2019-07
dc.identifier.citation	Health Lit Res Pract, 2019, 3, (3 Suppl), pp. S42-S57
dc.identifier.issn	2475-6024
dc.identifier.issn	2474-8307
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/160423
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Adult education targeting health literacy (HL) may bring added value in the form of improved health. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of a HL program as part of an adult education curriculum for adults with low literacy and numeracy. METHODS: This was a partial-cluster randomized controlled trial among 308 adults enrolled in basic education programs in Australia. Of the 308 participants, 141 (46%) were randomized to either the standard program (language, literacy, and numeracy [LLN]), or the HL intervention (LLN with embedded health content); the remainder (n = 167) were allocated to standard intervention programs by the education provider at the class level. The main outcomes were functional HL, self-reported confidence, patient activation, generic HL (ie, HLQ, health knowledge, and self-reported health behavior). Data were collected at baseline, immediately after, and at 6 months post-intervention. KEY RESULTS: Of the 308 participants, 71% had limited literacy and 60% spoke a language other than English at home. Both interventions benefited participants, with improvements from baseline to immediate follow up on individual-level functional HL (e.g., reading a thermometer; HL group 18.4% vs. standard group 7.2%; p = .001), confidence (HL group 0.34 vs. standard group 0.06; p = .014) and health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) subscales. At 6 months, improvements in confidence (p < .001) and some HLQ measures were retained. A consistent pattern of increased improvement in the HL program was observed compared to the standard program, although only some measures reached statistical significance: reading a food label (HL group 6.03/10 correct vs. standard group 5.49/10 correct; p = .022); confidence (p = .008); ability to actively manage health (HLQ) (p = .017), and health knowledge at 6 months (HL group 68% vs. standard group 60% correct, p = .052). HL participants reported being more likely to share course information and rated the program more useful to understand their health. CONCLUSIONS: Improving language, literacy, and numeracy generally has potential public health benefits that are retained at 6 months. Integrating health content adds further value to adult basic learning, is feasible, and potentially scalable. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(Suppl.):S42-S57.]. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We compared the effect of an adult education-based health literacy (HL) program versus a standard language, literacy, and numeracy program on students' HL skills and psychosocial outcomes. Although students in both trial arms improved their skills, students in the HL program had better outcomes with higher HL, greater confidence, and higher health knowledge scores at 6 months.
dc.format	Electronic-eCollection
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	SLACK, Inc.
dc.relation.ispartof	Health Lit Res Pract
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.3928/24748307-20190402-01
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title	Evaluation of an Australian Health Literacy Program Delivered in Adult Education Settings.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3
utslib.location.activity	United States
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Public Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-08-17T13:07:21Z
pubs.issue	3 Suppl
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	3
utslib.citation.issue	3 Suppl

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Adult education targeting health literacy (HL) may bring added value in the form of improved health. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of a HL program as part of an adult education curriculum for adults with low literacy and numeracy. METHODS: This was a partial-cluster randomized controlled trial among 308 adults enrolled in basic education programs in Australia. Of the 308 participants, 141 (46%) were randomized to either the standard program (language, literacy, and numeracy [LLN]), or the HL intervention (LLN with embedded health content); the remainder (n = 167) were allocated to standard intervention programs by the education provider at the class level. The main outcomes were functional HL, self-reported confidence, patient activation, generic HL (ie, HLQ, health knowledge, and self-reported health behavior). Data were collected at baseline, immediately after, and at 6 months post-intervention. KEY RESULTS: Of the 308 participants, 71% had limited literacy and 60% spoke a language other than English at home. Both interventions benefited participants, with improvements from baseline to immediate follow up on individual-level functional HL (e.g., reading a thermometer; HL group 18.4% vs. standard group 7.2%; p = .001), confidence (HL group 0.34 vs. standard group 0.06; p = .014) and health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) subscales. At 6 months, improvements in confidence (p < .001) and some HLQ measures were retained. A consistent pattern of increased improvement in the HL program was observed compared to the standard program, although only some measures reached statistical significance: reading a food label (HL group 6.03/10 correct vs. standard group 5.49/10 correct; p = .022); confidence (p = .008); ability to actively manage health (HLQ) (p = .017), and health knowledge at 6 months (HL group 68% vs. standard group 60% correct, p = .052). HL participants reported being more likely to share course information and rated the program more useful to understand their health. CONCLUSIONS: Improving language, literacy, and numeracy generally has potential public health benefits that are retained at 6 months. Integrating health content adds further value to adult basic learning, is feasible, and potentially scalable. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(Suppl.):S42-S57.]. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We compared the effect of an adult education-based health literacy (HL) program versus a standard language, literacy, and numeracy program on students' HL skills and psychosocial outcomes. Although students in both trial arms improved their skills, students in the HL program had better outcomes with higher HL, greater confidence, and higher health knowledge scores at 6 months.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/160423