Submit to IJERPH Review for IJERPH Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Health Communication Interventions and Health Literacy in the 21st Century

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Published Papers

A special issue of International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601). This special issue belongs to the section "Health Communication and Informatics".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 September 2022) | Viewed by 12839

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Carel Jansen

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

1. Department of Communication and Information Studies, University of Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, The Netherlands
2. Language Centre, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa
Interests: health communication; health literacy; narratives; fear appeals; comprehensibility
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Dr. Andrea F. de Winter

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, FA10, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
Interests: the role of health literacy and communication to promote person- and patient-centered prevention and care
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Dr. Burt Davis

E-Mail Website
Assistant Guest Editor

Africa Centre for HIV/AIDS Management, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 3V87+VQ, South Africa
Interests: health-based document analysis and design; health communication and promotion in underserved communities; narratives; fear appeals; impact of HIV in the workplace; HIV-related policy and program development and design

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Theoretical and experimental research has contributed a lot to our knowledge of the determinants of success of persuasive messages in health communication. However, communication professionals in this field still face great challenges when trying to develop messages that effectively change the behavior of large groups of people. This is evident, for example, from present-day problems in persuading people to adhere to the guidelines for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific difficulties emerge when trying to reach groups with a low level of health literacy.

This Special Issue will report studies into the effects of theory-based health communication interventions in groups with a low level of health literacy, preferably compared with the effects of the same interventions in other groups. We also welcome, for instance, studies on the co-creation of new interventions or qualitative studies to understand perspectives of vulnerable groups to inform communication interventions.

We expect authors not only to discuss the significance of their findings for the practice of health communication, but also to pay close attention to the contribution of their research to the theoretical framework they have chosen as a starting point, and to the upliftment of the groups/communities they have studied.

Prof. Dr. Carel Jansen
Dr. Andrea F. de Winter
Dr. Burt Davis
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2500 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

health communication
health literacy
health promotion
intervention
persuasion

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers

Research

14 pages, 519 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

by Emi Furukawa, Tsuyoshi Okuhara, Hiroko Okada, Ritsuko Shirabe, Rie Yokota, Reina Iye and Takahiro Kiuchi

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(23), 15763; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315763 - 26 Nov 2022

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 2290

Abstract

Background: The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) systematically evaluates the understandability and actionability of patient education materials. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of PEMAT and verify its reliability and validity. Methods: After assessing content validation, experts scored healthcare-related leaflets and videos according to PEMAT to verify inter-rater reliability. In validation testing with laypeople, the high-scoring material group (n = 800) was presented with materials that received high ratings on PEMAT, and the low-scoring material group (n = 799) with materials that received low ratings. Both groups responded to the understandability and actionability of the materials and perceived self-efficacy for the recommended actions. Results: The Japanese version of PEMAT showed strong inter-rater reliability (PEMAT-P: % agreement = 87.3, Gwet’s AC1 = 0.83. PEMAT-A/V: % agreement = 85.7, Gwet’s AC1 = 0.80). The high-scoring material group had significantly higher scores for understandability and actionability than the low-scoring material group (PEMAT-P: understandability 6.53 vs. 5.96, p < 0.001; actionability 6.04 vs. 5.49, p < 0.001; PEMAT-A/V: understandability 7.65 vs. 6.76, p < 0.001; actionability 7.40 vs. 6.36, p < 0.001). Perceived self-efficacy increased more in the high-scoring material group than in the low-scoring material group. Conclusions: Our study showed that materials rated highly on Japanese version of PEMAT were also easy for laypeople to understand and action. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Communication Interventions and Health Literacy in the 21st Century)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1820 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS)

by Alicia Chung, Tiffany Donley, Ron D. Hays, Rebecca Robbins, Azizi Seixas and Girardin Jean-Louis

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8660; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148660 - 16 Jul 2022

Viewed by 1485

Abstract

Patient health literacy is vital to clinical trial engagement. Knowledge and beliefs about clinical trials may contribute to patient literacy of clinical trials, influencing engagement, enrollment and retention. We developed and assessed a survey that measures clinical trial health knowledge and beliefs, known as the Clinical trial HEalth Knowledge and belief Scale (CHEKS). The 31 survey items in CHEKS represent knowledge and beliefs about clinical trial research (n = 409) in 2017. We examined item-scale correlations for the 31 items, eliminated items with item-scale correlations less than 0.30, and then estimated internal consistency reliability for the remaining 25 items. We used the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate model fit. The average age of the sample was 34 (SD = 15.7) and 48% female. We identified 6 of the 31 items that had item-scale correlations (corrected for overlap) lower than 0.30. Coefficient alpha for the remaining 25 items was 0.93 A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model with 16 correlated errors was not statistically significant (chi-square = 10011.994, df = 300, p < 0.001) but fit the data well (CFI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.07). CHEKS can assess clinical trial knowledge and beliefs. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Communication Interventions and Health Literacy in the 21st Century)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 837 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Estimating Patient Empowerment and Nurses’ Use of Digital Strategies: eSurvey Study

by Olga Navarro Martínez, Jorge Igual García and Vicente Traver Salcedo

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(18), 9844; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189844 - 18 Sep 2021

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3118

Abstract

Patient empowerment is seen as the capability to understand health information and make decisions based on it. It is a competence that can improve self-care, adherence and overall health. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for information and has also reduced the number of visits to health centers. Nurses have had to adapt in order to continue offering quality care in different environments such as the digital world, but this entails assessing the level of their patients’ empowerment and adapting material and educational messages to new realities. The aim of this study is, on the one hand, to assess nurses’ use of digital resources to provide reinforcing information to their patients and, on the other hand, to evaluate how they assess the level of empowerment of their patients. To perform the study, 850 nurses answered 21 questions related to their own digital literacy and patients’ empowerment. The ability to make decisions is the characteristic most selected by nurses (70%) as useful in measuring patient empowerment, whereas 9.19% do not measure it in any way. Printed material is most often used by nurses to offer additional information to patients (71.93%), mobile applications are the least used option (21.58%), and elder nurses are those who most recommend digital resources. In this study, younger nurses make little or no use of technology as a resource for training and monitoring patients. In spite of some limitations concerning the study, digital health needs to be promoted as an indisputable tool in the nurse’s briefcase in the future to ensure that older patients can manage electronic resources in different fields. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Communication Interventions and Health Literacy in the 21st Century)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 1646 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Improving Health Literacy Responsiveness: A Randomized Study on the Uptake of Brochures on Doctor-Patient Communication in Primary Health Care Waiting Rooms

by Carel J. M. Jansen, Ruth Koops van ’t Jagt, Sijmen A. Reijneveld, Ellen van Leeuwen, Andrea F. de Winter and John C. J. Hoeks

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(9), 5025; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18095025 - 10 May 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 4364

Abstract

Presenting attractive and useful health education materials in waiting rooms can help improve an organization’s health literacy responsiveness. However, it is unclear to what extent patients may be interested in health education materials, such as brochures. We conducted a three-week field study in waiting rooms of three primary care centers in Groningen. Three versions of a brochure on doctor-patient communication were randomly distributed, 2250 in total. One version contained six short photo stories, another version was non-narrative but contained comparable photos, and the third version was a traditional brochure. Each day we counted how many brochures were taken. We also asked patients (N = 471) to participate in a brief interview. Patients who consented (N = 390) were asked if they had noticed the brochure. If yes (N = 135), they were asked why they had or had not browsed the brochure, and why they had or had not taken it. Interview responses were categorized by two authors. Only 2.9% of the brochures were taken; no significant association with brochure version was found. Analysis of the interview data showed that the version with the photo narrative was noticed significantly more often than the non-narrative version or the traditional version. These results suggest that designing attractive and comprehensible health materials is not enough. Healthcare organizations should also create effective strategies to reach their target population. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Communication Interventions and Health Literacy in the 21st Century)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Health Communication Interventions and Health Literacy in the 21st Century

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Published Papers (4 papers)

Research

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI