Developing and pilot testing a comprehensive health literacy communication training for health professionals in three European countries

35Citations
Citations of this article
133Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective Skills to address different health literacy problems are lacking among health professionals. We sought to develop and pilot test a comprehensive health literacy communication training for various health professionals in Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands. Methods Thirty health professionals participated in the study. A literature review focused on evidence-informed training-components. Focus group discussions (FGDs) explored perspectives from seventeen professionals on a prototype-program, and feedback from thirteen professionals following pilot-training. Pre-post questionnaires assessed self-rated health literacy communication skills. Results The literature review yielded five training-components to address functional, interactive and critical health literacy: health literacy education, gathering and providing information, shared decision-making, enabling self-management, and supporting behaviour change. In FGDs, professionals endorsed the prototype-program and reported that the pilot-training increased knowledge and patient-centred communication skills in addressing health literacy, as shown by self-rated pre-post questionnaires. Conclusion A comprehensive training for health professionals in three European countries enhances perceived skills to address functional, interactive and critical health literacy. Practice implications This training has potential for wider application in education and practice in Europe.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaper, M. S., Sixsmith, J., Koot, J. A. R., Meijering, L. B., van Twillert, S., Giammarchi, C., … de Winter, A. F. (2018). Developing and pilot testing a comprehensive health literacy communication training for health professionals in three European countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(1), 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.07.017

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free