TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of literacy and numeracy skills related to medication labels in patients on chronic in-center hemodialysis
AU - Jang, Soo Min
AU - Parker, Wendy M.
AU - Pai, Amy Barton
AU - Jiang, Ruixin
AU - Cardone, Katie E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Pharmacists Association®
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Objectives: Patients on hemodialysis have complicated medication regimens requiring the ability to accurately interpret medication information. Literacy and numeracy skills have been shown to differ by the types of materials provided to patients. The aims of this study were to determine prescription and over-the-counter medication label understanding and to assess the prevalence of low health literacy regarding medication labeling among in-center hemodialysis patients. Design, setting and participants: The Medication Literacy and Numeracy in Dialysis (MedLitD) tool is an assessment of a person's ability to read and understand medication labels. A comparison with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Short Form (REALM-SF), an established literacy tool, was conducted to determine if there were differences in the literacy results from the 2 tools that could be leveraged to target education initiatives for this specialized population. Results: A total of 110 patients receiving hemodialysis from 3 dialysis facilities in the Capital Region of upstate New York were enrolled in the study. Most patients (77%) achieved a maximum REALM-SF score, indicating a high level of literacy proficiency; however, their MedLitD scores varied. Patients who were 65 years and older had lower scores on the MedLitD tool compared with younger patients. Gender, education, and the number of medications did not influence the MedLitD scores. Only 16% of all participants correctly answered the question asking for an indication of the phosphate binder (PB), although the most patients were currently taking PBs. Conclusion: A continuum of medication literacy levels exists among patients on hemodialysis. Appropriate evaluation of medication literacy should be done to better inform individualized education and counseling.
AB - Objectives: Patients on hemodialysis have complicated medication regimens requiring the ability to accurately interpret medication information. Literacy and numeracy skills have been shown to differ by the types of materials provided to patients. The aims of this study were to determine prescription and over-the-counter medication label understanding and to assess the prevalence of low health literacy regarding medication labeling among in-center hemodialysis patients. Design, setting and participants: The Medication Literacy and Numeracy in Dialysis (MedLitD) tool is an assessment of a person's ability to read and understand medication labels. A comparison with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Short Form (REALM-SF), an established literacy tool, was conducted to determine if there were differences in the literacy results from the 2 tools that could be leveraged to target education initiatives for this specialized population. Results: A total of 110 patients receiving hemodialysis from 3 dialysis facilities in the Capital Region of upstate New York were enrolled in the study. Most patients (77%) achieved a maximum REALM-SF score, indicating a high level of literacy proficiency; however, their MedLitD scores varied. Patients who were 65 years and older had lower scores on the MedLitD tool compared with younger patients. Gender, education, and the number of medications did not influence the MedLitD scores. Only 16% of all participants correctly answered the question asking for an indication of the phosphate binder (PB), although the most patients were currently taking PBs. Conclusion: A continuum of medication literacy levels exists among patients on hemodialysis. Appropriate evaluation of medication literacy should be done to better inform individualized education and counseling.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85089454290
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85089454290#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.japh.2020.07.010
DO - 10.1016/j.japh.2020.07.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 32811751
SN - 1544-3191
VL - 60
SP - 957-962.e1
JO - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
JF - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
IS - 6
ER -