Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h8MD4kV11894; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030921010432.01b6e6c8@mail.med.upenn.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Ian Bennett <ibennett@mail.med.upenn.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4134] "Health literacy" out "Clear Health Communication" in X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 2919 Lines: 52 Hello Everyone, I was lucky enough to be able to participate in this year's Pfizer Health Literacy Initiative annual meeting in Washington and had a few thoughts that I thought might fit well in the discussion here. There were many interesting presentations and discussions that covered the progress, limitations, and possible future for work in health literacy. I was really happy to hear people talk about the formation of collaborations between the worlds of adult education and health for basic research and intervention development/evaluation. One interesting point that I wanted to discuss further to help my own thoughts is the change of the name of the Pfizer program from "Health Literacy" to "Clear Health Communication." There has always been a lot of confusion about what exactly anyone meant when they used the phrase health literacy (one person might be thinking mostly literacy and another something about health system navigation skills). This name certainly clarifies the focus but I am interested in what it might mean for the study of literacy and health. Clearly low literacy skill will continue to be a part in how clear health communication can happen and maybe this is what many people thinking about health literacy where really talking about all along. But, now that the word literacy isn't in the title any longer does this pull the focus a bit away from the obstacles faced by those who cannot read? If so, let's not forget that most of the work out there on poor health status and outcomes is related to literacy (or more precisely reading) not the more global concept of health literacy. We also are always referring to the NALS which measured literacy not health literacy. What I mean to say is that there isn't much that I am aware of that shows that someone with high reading scores but would score low in the theoretical domains of health literacy, will have more illness, spend more time in the hospital, or die sooner, than someone with good reading skill and good health literacy. It may be true but there is no evidence of it. There are some interesting areas in health communication that are suddenly opened up by the use of the "clear health communication" phrase like the data that there are health disparities (that is differences in quality of care and health outcomes that follow the lines of race) in the kinds of options and care that is offered to patients as well as actual health outcomes (Cooper-Patrick, Roter, and others). I have not heard those studies mentioned previously at the Pfizer conference but maybe it is time to bring it in. To end this stream of consciousness I guess there are new opportunities but also some new challenges to make sure that the literacy part is not lost as we move forward as a group. Ian M. Bennett, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine University of Pennsylvania
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:12 EST