Zusammenfassung

    Abstract Background 54% of the German population has limited health literacy, which is associated with poorer health outcomes and higher utilization of the healthcare system. Aim of the study The aim of this pilot study was to examine the effects of an easy-to-understand patient letter on patients’ health literacy after discharge from a Clinic for Internal Medicine and to analyze patients’ need for written, easy-to-understand information. Method In a randomized controlled trial (2016–2018), the effects of the patient letter on health literacy were examined by means of the HLS-EU-Q47 questionnaire. The intervention group (IG, n=242) received an easy-to-understand patient letter 3 days after discharge, the control group (KG, n=175) received only the usual medical discharge letter. Results 60% of post-discharge patients were found to have limited health literacy. The study could not show any effect of patient letters on overall health literacy. The analysis of single items of health literacy showed positive effects of these letters on patients’ comprehension of medical advice as well as their understanding and implementation of medication instructions (Cohens d≥0.20). Furthermore, patients expressed their wish for information after discharge from hospital (99%) and rated the patient letter as informative, understandable and helpful. Conclusions Patients wish to receive and are empowered by an easy-to-understand letter after discharge from hospital with medical information and medical instructions that they can implement at home. Key Words Health literacy - patient letter - hospitialization - discharge management - patient empowerment 26 September 2023 © 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Georg Thieme Verlag Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany Literatur 1 Sørensen K, van den Broucke S, Fullam J. et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 80 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-80. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 2 Jordan S, Hoebel J. Gesundheitskompetenz von Erwachsenen in Deutschland : Ergebnisse der Studie “Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell” (GEDA). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2015; 58: 942-950 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-015-2200-z. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 3 Schaeffer D, Vogt D, Berens E-M. et al. Gesundheitskompetenz der Bevölkerung in Deutschland: Ergebnisbericht. Universität Bielefeld. Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften 2016; DOI: 10.2390/0070-PUB-29081112. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 4 Ernstmann N, Bauer U, Berens E-M. et al. DNVF Memorandum Gesundheitskompetenz (Teil 1) – Hintergrund, Relevanz, Gegenstand und Fragestellungen in der Versorgungsforschung. Gesundheitswesen 2020; 82: e77-e93 DOI: 10.1055/a-1191-3689. Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar 5 Parker R. Messung der Gesundheitskompetenz: What? Was nun? Was jetzt? In: Messungen der Gesundheitskompetenz: Workshop-Zusammenfassung. 2009: 91-98 Google Scholar 6 Parker R, Ratzan SC. Gesundheitskompetenz: ein zweites Jahrzehnt der Unterscheidung für Amerikaner. J Health Commun 2010; 15: 20-33 DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2010.501094. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 7 Pelikan JM, Dietscher C. Warum sollten und wie können Krankenhäuser ihre organisationale Gesundheitskompetenz verbessern. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2015; 58: 989-995 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-015-2206-6. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 8 Schaeffler D, Hurrelmannm K, Bauer U. et al. Nationaler Aktionsplan Gesundheitskompetenz. Förderung der Gesundheitskompetenz in Deutschland. Berlin: KomPart;; 2018 Google Scholar 9 Bittner J. Vermittlung von Gesundheitskompetenz durch für Patienten verständliche medizinische Befunde [Köln, Univ., Diss., 2016]. Köln: Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Medizin; 2016. DOI: 10.4126/FRL01-006399649 CrossrefGoogle Scholar 10 Robert Koch-Institut. Chronisches Kranksein. Faktenblatt GEDA 2012. In: Daten und Fakten: Ergebnisse der Studie “Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell 2012”. Robert Koch-Institut. 2014: 41-43 Google Scholar 11 Sørensen K, Pelikan JM, Röthlin F. et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Public Health 2015; 25: 1053-1058 DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv043. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 12 Domanska OM, Firnges C, Bollweg TM. et al. Verstehen Jugendliche die Items des European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q47) – deutsche Version? Befunde aus kognitiven Interviews des Projekts “Measurement of Health Literacy Among Adolescents” (MOHLAA) in Deutschland. Arch Public Health 2018; 76: 46 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-018-0276- 2. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Vorschau