Inadequate health literacy is a pervasive problem with major implications for reduced health status and health disparities. Despite the role of focused education in both primary and secondary prevention of stroke, the effect of health literacy on stroke education retention has not been reported. We examined the relationship of health literacy to the retention of knowledge after recommended stroke education.
This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at an urban safety-net hospital. Study subjects were patients older than 18 admitted to the hospital stroke unit with a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke who were able to provide informed consent to participate (N = 100). Health literacy levels were measured by using the short form of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. Patient education was provided to patients at an inpatient stroke unit by using standardized protocols, in compliance with Joint Commission specifications. The education outcomes for poststroke care education, knowledge retention, was assessed for each subject. The effect of health literacy on the Stroke Patient Education Retention scores was assessed by using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Of the 100 participating patients, 59% had inadequate to marginal health literacy. Stroke patients who had marginal health literacy (mean score, 7.45; standard deviation [SD], 1.9) or adequate health literacy (mean score, 7.31; SD, 1.76) had statistically higher education outcome scores than those identified as having inadequate health literacy (mean score, 5.58; SD, 2.06). Results from multivariate analysis indicated that adequate health literacy was most predictive of education outcome retention.
This study demonstrated a clear relationship between health literacy and stroke education outcomes. Studies are needed to better understand the relationship of health literacy to key educational outcomes for primary or secondary prevention of stroke and to refine stroke education for literacy levels of high-risk populations.
Inadequate health literacy is a pervasive problem with major implications for reduced health status and health disparities (
Health literacy — the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information and services needed to promote better health (
Education is a fundamental strategy of stroke prevention and treatment, but the effect of health literacy on stroke education outcomes has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of health literacy to stroke education outcomes, following stroke education in an acute stroke unit at an urban safety net hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. A secondary aim was to assess the relationship of demographic and other characteristics associated with levels of health literacy and to explore their relationship to education outcomes in ischemic stroke patients at the time of their hospital discharge.
This was a hospital-based, prospective, cross-sectional study. Health literacy levels were measured by using the short form of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) (
From August 2009 through June 2010, 101 eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who were consecutively admitted to the inpatient stroke unit at UF Health–Jacksonville provided written consent to participate in the study. UF Health–Jacksonville is a 750-bed tertiary-care hospital located north of downtown Jacksonville, Florida, with an AIS catchment area that includes the city of Jacksonville, 10 northeast Florida rural counties, and 2 southeast Georgia rural counties. This hospital has been certified as a primary stroke center by the Joint Commission since 2004.
Study subjects were patients older than 18 who were admitted to the hospital stroke unit with an AIS diagnosis. Subjects were identified and recruited by either the treating neurologist or a stroke unit nurse manager. Diagnosis of AIS was confirmed by a neurologist, and a computerized tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan confirmed the location and size of the brain infarction. Subjects who were unable to provide informed consent were excluded. Prisoners and subjects with diagnosed severe cognitive dysfunction due to dementia, global aphasia, or receptive aphasia were excluded. Once subjects were identified and their consent was obtained, subjects underwent literacy assessments. Of 189 subjects screened, 70 were excluded due to severe cognitive impairment. Eighteen eligible subjects refused to participate, 1 subject withdrew consent before completing the assessment, and 100 (84%) completed the study that constituted our study sample.
Demographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, annual household income, and education level, was collected through either patient interview or chart review. Residences of patients were coded and analyzed using zip codes, which have been aggregated into the city of Jacksonville’s 6 health zones. These zones, designated by the county health department and that reflect different racial/ethnic and other demographic characteristics of the residents, were based on regional boundaries used by city organizational entities, including the Duval County Public Schools, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, and the Community Planning Action Councils, as well as physical geographic boundaries and barriers (river, ocean). Growing recognition of the effect of community of residence (place matters) on health outcomes, particularly in the Jacksonville community (
The magnitude of neurological deficit at the time of hospital admission for each subject was delineated by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (
A trained research staff member administered the S-TOFHLA, which takes 8 minutes on average to administer (
Nurses on the stroke unit are trained in stroke patient education via completion of a self-learning module with yearly skill updates. Upon admission to the stroke unit, the registered nurse (RN) assessed the patient’s readiness for learning and developed an individualized stroke education plan. Stroke education was initiated as soon as possible during patients’ stay in the stroke unit. Educational sessions were designed to cover all of the topics that the Joint Commission mandates for a certified primary stroke center: personal risk factors for stroke, warning signs for stroke, activation of emergency medical services, need for follow-up after discharge, and medications prescribed for stroke prevention (
After the education session and before discharge a research staff member assessed the patients’ comprehension and retention of the information provided in the educational session by asking the 5 questions of the Stroke Patient Education Retention (SPER) score (
| Question | Acceptable Responses |
|---|---|
| 1. Do you know the warning signs for stroke? | Sudden weakness/numbness one side of the body |
| Confusion/trouble speaking or understanding | |
| Trouble seeing | |
| Trouble walking/dizziness or loss of balance | |
| Severe headache | |
|
| |
| 2. What are your personal risk factors for stroke that can be modified to lower your risk of another stroke? | Hypertension |
| Diabetes mellitus | |
| High cholesterol | |
| Tobacco use | |
| Carotid artery disease | |
| Atrial fibrillation | |
|
| |
| 3. What will you do if you develop symptoms of a stroke? | Seek emergency services by calling 911 |
|
| |
| 4. Do you know the medication you were prescribed to prevent another stroke? | Name of antiplatelet drug or anticoagulation drug |
|
| |
| 5. What type of stroke did you have? | Ischemic stroke |
| Brain infarction | |
| Stroke due to an occluded blood vessel | |
Subject responses were scored (range, 0–10) using the Stroke Patient Education Retention (SPER) score. Questions 1 and 2 were scored as follows: 0 = no correct content in response to the question, 1 = the patient provided some but not all of the correct content in response to the question, and 2 = patient provided all key content in response to the question. Questions 3–6 were scored as follows as 0 = no correct content in response to the question and 2 = the patient provided the correct response to the question. A score of 10 indicates all correct responses to key content in the education sessions.
Statistical analyses and modeling were conducted using SAS version 9.3 software (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina). Continuous variables were described by using means, standard deviations (SDs), and medians. Categorical variables were presented as counts and percentages and analyzed using Pearson χ2 or Fisher Exact tests, when appropriate. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify factors independently associated with SPER. For univariate analysis, the differences in the SPER scores among the 3 S-TOFHLA groups were assessed using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test and with Tukey’s adjustment for pairwise comparisons. For multivariate analysis, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to model the data and estimate the least squared means. A backward elimination variable procedure was conducted to eliminate weak predictors that contributed marginally in explaining variation in the SPER scores. Variables considered included S-TOFHLA score, sex, age (<60 years or ≥60 years), income (<$25,000 per year or ≥$25,000 per year), education (less than high school graduate or high school graduate or more), race (African American or other than African American), employment status (currently working, retired, unemployed, or other), NIHSS score, and MMSE score.
Variations in health literacy across the various patient demographic characteristics were not significant except for education level (
| Characteristic | Total | S-TOFHLA Levels |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate | Marginal | Adequate | |||
|
| 100 (100) | 35 (37) | 21 (22) | 39 (41) | NA |
|
| |||||
| Male | 57 (57) | 20 (57) | 9 (43) | 25 (64) | .29 |
| Female | 43 (43) | 15 (43) | 12 (57) | 14 (36) | |
|
| |||||
| ≥60 | 48 (48) | 20 (57) | 10 (48) | 14 (36) | .19 |
| <60 | 52 (52) | 15 (43) | 11 (52) | 25 (64) | |
|
| |||||
| <25,000/y | 64 (75) | 24 (77) | 10 (59) | 28 (80) | .23 |
| ≥25,000/y | 21 (25) | 7 (23) | 7 (41) | 7 (20) | |
|
| |||||
| Less than high school graduate | 56 (57) | 25 (74) | 12 (57) | 16 (41) | .02 |
| High school graduate or more | 43 (43) | 9 (26) | 9 (43) | 23 (59) | |
|
| |||||
| African American | 56 (56) | 20 (57) | 12 (57) | 21 (54) | .95 |
| Other than African American | 44 (44) | 15 (43) | 9 (43) | 18 (46) | |
|
| |||||
| ≤3 | 60 (64) | 20 (59) | 13 (65) | 25 (71) | .55 |
| >4 | 34 (36) | 14 (41) | 7 (35) | 10 (29) | |
|
| |||||
| Currently working | 23 (23) | 6 (17) | 4 (19) | 12 (31) | .28 |
| Retired | 36 (36) | 17 (49) | 7 (33) | 9 (23) | |
| Unemployed | 27 (27) | 7 (20) | 6 (29) | 14 (36) | |
| Other | 14 (14) | 5 (14) | 4 (19) | 4 (10) | |
|
| |||||
| 1 = Urban core | 43 (43) | 19 (54) | 8 (38) | 14 (36) | .16 |
| 2 = Greater Arlington | 5 (5) | 1 (3) | 1 (5) | 3 (8) | |
| 3 = Southeast | 5 (5) | 0 | 2 (10) | 3 (8) | |
| 4 = Southwest | 13 (13) | 2 (6) | 4 (19) | 5 (13) | |
| 5 = Outer rim | 8 (8) | 6 (17) | 0 (0) | 2 (5) | |
| 6 = Beaches | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 7 = Out of Duval | 26 (26) | 7 (20) | 6 (29) | 12 (31) | |
|
| 26.4 (3.3) | 24.9 (3.6) | 26.8 (3.8) | 27.6 (2.4) | .003 |
|
| 3.4 (2.9) | 3.9 (3.1) | 3.1 (2.4) | 2.9 (3.1) | .28 |
Abbreviations: S-TOFHLA, short form of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults; NA, not applicable; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Exam; SD, standard deviation.
Health literacy assessed by S-TOFHLA; values expressed as no. (%) unless otherwise indicated.
Total counts may be higher than the total counts over S-TOFHLA groups because of 5 missing values for S-TOFHLA; total values for some categories may not calculate to 100 because of missing responses.
Calculated by using Pearson χ2 test.
Calculated by using Fisher Exact test.
Calculated on the basis of responses to the MMSE; raw score range, 0–30.
Calculated by using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Calculated on the basis of clinical exam; raw score range, 0–42.
| Responses | S-TOFHLA Group | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate | Marginal | Adequate | ||
|
| ||||
| None | 1 (3) | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) |
| Some | 29 (88) | 18 (90) | 32 (82) | 84 (87) |
| All | 3 (9) | 2 (10) | 7 (18) | 12 (12) |
|
| ||||
| None | 9 (27) | 0 | 3 (8) | 12 (12) |
| Some | 13 (39) | 9 (45) | 17 (44) | 43 (45) |
| All | 11 (33) | 11 (55) | 19 (49) | 42 (43) |
|
| ||||
| None | 8 (24) | 2 (10) | 5 (13) | 15 (15) |
| All | 25 (76) | 18 (90) | 34 (87) | 82 (85) |
|
| ||||
| None | 12 (36) | 1 (5) | 9 (23) | 23 (24) |
| All | 21 (64) | 19 (95) | 30 (77) | 74 (76) |
|
| ||||
| None | 22 (67) | 9 (45) | 11 (28) | 46 (47) |
| All | 11 (33) | 11 (55) | 28 (72) | 51 (53) |
|
| 5.58 (2.06) | 7.45 (1.61) | 7.31 (1.76) | 6.69 (2.0) |
Abbreviations: S-TOFHLA, short form of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults; SD, standard deviation.
Values expressed as no. (%) unless otherwise indicated.
None = no correct content provided in response to the question; some = the patient provided some but not all of the correct content in response to the question; all = patient provided all key content in response to the question.
| Comparison of S-TOFHLA levels | Differences Between Mean Scores |
|
|---|---|---|
| Marginal health literacy with inadequate health literacy | 1.87 (0.63 to 3.12) | .001 |
| Adequate health literacy with inadequate health literacy | 1.73 (0.69 to 2.77) | .001 |
| Marginal health literacy with adequate health literacy | 0.14 (−1.07 to 1.35) | .60 |
Abbreviation: S-TOFHLA, short form of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults; CI, confidence interval.
Tukey-adjusted
Using multivariate analysis to examine the relationship of health literacy to education outcomes while considering other patient characteristics, a backward selection procedure was conducted to eliminate weak predictors that contributed marginally in explaining variation in the SPER scores using an ANCOVA regression modeling approach. The full model had STOFHLA score (
Patients hospitalized with AIS are at significant risk for recurrent stroke over short- and long-term periods. A meta-analysis of hospital- and community-based studies reporting risk of stroke recurrence after first ever stroke found overall cumulative risk of 3.1% at 30 days, 11% at 1 year, 26% at 5 years, and 39% at 10 years (
Completion of stroke education on AIS inpatients before hospital discharge is 1 of the 8 core performance measures that Joint Commission–certified primary stroke centers must conduct. There are more than 1,000 certified primary stroke centers in all 50 states (
Future research is needed on education approaches that are modified to accommodate differences in literacy and culture. From our reviews, no other studies have reported the influence of health literacy level on education retention in hospital inpatients with AIS. Community-based and single-center studies have suggested that lower heath literacy is associated with less knowledge regarding primary prevention of stroke. Significant deficiencies in stroke literacy, including awareness of stroke warning symptoms and risk factors, in a population at risk for low health literacy have also been described (
In addition to the inverse relationship between low literacy and positive education outcomes, our study showed that low health literacy was prevalent in this high-risk population. We found that 59% of the population had marginal to inadequate health literacy at the time of discharge. This percentage of patients with low health literacy was much greater than would be expected in a general population mix. A previous population-based study using S-TOFHLA reported that 30% of the non-Hispanic English-speaking population scored in the marginal to inadequate range (
A limitation of our study was the lack of evidence or predictive validity concerning stroke patient education outcomes, such as long-term retention and patient adherence or fidelity to self-management. Although researchers have found associations between education-related outcomes such as understanding and behavior, the relationship between improved education outcomes and improved adherence to stroke prevention strategies and reduced stroke recurrence has not been well established. More study may be needed to clarify what patient education outcomes are most effective in increasing adherence and improving patient self-management. Another limitation of this study was that the modeling approach was not sufficiently powered (sample size not large enough) to detect the effect of many demographic factors on stroke incidence. Consequently, only the most prominent factors that influenced patient education retention were statistically significant.
Literacy is but one factor that can contribute to patient adherence to follow-up care to prevent and control for the recurrence of stroke and to achieve optimal functioning following a stroke incident. As with most human behavior, adherence is likely to be influenced by the complex and interacting relationships of social, physical, intellectual, and emotional factors. Developing the evidence base for achieving better stroke outcomes requires better understanding of the factors that influence adherence to recommended patient behaviors, and health literacy has been demonstrated to be a factor that influences patient ability to retain clinical education and counseling. Developing approaches to education and counseling that adjust to the individual circumstance of each patient are likely to be needed, given the variation in patient profiles. Educational and counseling interventions that account for differences in literacy may be necessary in the same way that cultural tailoring (
The University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville Dean’s Grant Program, provided funding for this project. All authors have read and approved the manuscript and have no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to report.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.