TY - JOUR
T1 - Development and pilot evaluation of literacy-adapted diabetes and CVD education in urban, diabetic African Americans
AU - Hill-Briggs, Felicia
AU - Renosky, Ronda
AU - Lazo-Elizondo, Mariana
AU - Bone, Lee
AU - Hill, Martha
AU - Levine, David
AU - Brancati, Frederick Louis
AU - Peyrot, Mark
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflicts of Interest: Drs. Hill-Briggs, Lazo, Bone, Hill, Levine and Brancati, and Ms. Renosky report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Peyrot’s dualities of interest include consulting arrangements with Amylin, Animas, MannKind, Medingo, Medtronic, and Novo Nordisk; honoraria provided by Novo Nordisk; research grants funded by Amylin, MannKind, Medtronic, and Novo Nordisk; and pending research grants through MannKind, Medtronic, and Novo Nordisk. The research described in this manuscript is not related to Dr. Peyrot’s relationships with these companies.
Funding Information:
Acknowledgments: This research was funded by National Institutes of Health grant K01HL076644, American Diabetes Association grant 7-06-IN-07, and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine General Clinical Research Center grant M01-RR00052 from the National Center for Research Resources/NIH. It was presented in part at the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Washington D.C., March 2007. We thank Joy Mays for technical assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - BACKGROUND: Despite prevalent low literacy nationally, empirical research on the development and testing of literacy-adapted patient education remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe procedures for developing and evaluating usability and acceptability of an adapted diabetes and CVD patient education. DESIGN: Materials adaptation for literacy demand and behavioral activation criteria, and pre-/post-test intervention evaluation design. PARTICIPANTS: Pilot sample of 30 urban African-American adults with type 2 diabetes with Below Average literacy (n=15) and Average literacy (n=15). MEASUREMENTS: Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3, Reading), assessment of diabetes and CVD knowledge, and patient rating scale. RESULTS: Reading grade levels were: >12th, 30%; 10th-12th, 20%; 7th-9th, 10%; 4th-6th grade, 10%; and ≥3rd grade or unable to complete WRAT-3, 30%. Education materials were modified to a reading level of ≥4th grade. Knowledge improved for Below Average (2.7 to 4.7, p=0.005) and Average (3.8 to 5.7, p=0.002) literacy groups, with up to a ten-fold increase, at post-education, in the number of participants responding correctly to some content items. The print materials and class received maximum usability and acceptability ratings from patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development of patient education meeting very low literacy criteria was feasible, effective for knowledge acquisition, and highly acceptable irrespective of literacy level.
AB - BACKGROUND: Despite prevalent low literacy nationally, empirical research on the development and testing of literacy-adapted patient education remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe procedures for developing and evaluating usability and acceptability of an adapted diabetes and CVD patient education. DESIGN: Materials adaptation for literacy demand and behavioral activation criteria, and pre-/post-test intervention evaluation design. PARTICIPANTS: Pilot sample of 30 urban African-American adults with type 2 diabetes with Below Average literacy (n=15) and Average literacy (n=15). MEASUREMENTS: Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3, Reading), assessment of diabetes and CVD knowledge, and patient rating scale. RESULTS: Reading grade levels were: >12th, 30%; 10th-12th, 20%; 7th-9th, 10%; 4th-6th grade, 10%; and ≥3rd grade or unable to complete WRAT-3, 30%. Education materials were modified to a reading level of ≥4th grade. Knowledge improved for Below Average (2.7 to 4.7, p=0.005) and Average (3.8 to 5.7, p=0.002) literacy groups, with up to a ten-fold increase, at post-education, in the number of participants responding correctly to some content items. The print materials and class received maximum usability and acceptability ratings from patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development of patient education meeting very low literacy criteria was feasible, effective for knowledge acquisition, and highly acceptable irrespective of literacy level.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=50049099401&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=50049099401&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11606-008-0679-9
DO - 10.1007/s11606-008-0679-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 18521688
AN - SCOPUS:50049099401
SN - 0884-8734
VL - 23
SP - 1491
EP - 1494
JO - Journal of general internal medicine
JF - Journal of general internal medicine
IS - 9
ER -