Physician Notification of Their Diabetes Patients' Limited Health Literacy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00189.x

J Gen Intern Med. 2005 November; 20(11): 1001–1007.

doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00189.x

PMCID: PMC1490250

Physician Notification of Their Diabetes Patients' Limited Health Literacy

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Hilary K Seligman, MD,¹ Frances F Wang, MS,¹ Jorge L Palacios, MA,¹ Clifford C Wilson, BA,¹ Carolyn Daher, MPH,¹ John D Piette, PhD,² and Dean Schillinger, MD¹

¹Primary Care Research Center, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA

²Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, Department of Internal Medicine and Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

The authors have no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, to report for this article or this research.

Portions of this work were presented in abstract form at the Society for General Internal Medicine regional (California) and national meetings in 2001 and 2003.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Schillinger: Box 1364, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 (e-mail: dean/at/itsa.ucsf.edu).

See editorial by Montori, p. 1071

Received April 7, 2005; Revised May 3, 2005; Accepted May 3, 2005.

This article has been corrected. See J Gen Intern Med. 2005 November; 20(11): 1077.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many patients with chronic disease have limited health literacy (HL). Because physicians have difficulty identifying these patients, some experts recommend instituting screening programs in clinical settings. It is unclear if notifying physicians of patients' limited HL improves care processes or outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether notifying physicians of their patients' limited HL affects physician behavior, physician satisfaction, or patient self-efficacy.

DESIGN

We screened all patients for limited HL and randomized physicians to be notified if their patients had limited HL skills.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-three primary care physicians affiliated with a public hospital and 182 diabetic patients with limited HL.

MEASUREMENTS

After their visit, physicians reported their management strategies, satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and attitudes toward HL screening. We also assessed patients' self-efficacy, feelings regarding HL screening's usefulness, and glycemic control.

RESULTS

Intervention physicians were more likely than control physicians to use management strategies recommended for patients with limited HL (OR 3.2, P=.04). However, intervention physicians felt less satisfied with their visits (81% vs 93%, P=.01) and marginally less effective (38% vs 53%, P=.10). Intervention and control patients' post-visit self-efficacy scores were similar (12.6 vs 12.9, P=.6). Sixty-four percent of intervention physicians and 96% of patients felt HL screening was useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are responsive to receiving notification of their patients' limited HL, and patients support the potential utility of HL screening. However, instituting screening programs without specific training and/or system-wide support for physicians and patients is unlikely to be a powerful tool in improving diabetes outcomes.

Keywords: health literacy, screening, diabetes mellitus, physician-patient communication

Health literacy (HL) refers to the degree to which individuals can obtain and understand the basic information and services needed to make appropriate decisions regarding their health.¹ It is commonly measured by assessing one's ability to perform the reading tasks necessary to function in the health care environment.² As many as half of patients receiving care in public hospitals³ and one-third of Medicare patients⁴ have limited HL.

Both the Institute of Medicine¹ and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality⁵ have recently released reports highlighting the clinical significance of limited HL. When compared to patients with adequate HL, patients with limited HL demonstrate lower knowledge of chronic disease prevention and management,⁶^–¹² worse health status⁷^,¹³^,¹⁴ and higher utilization of hospital and emergency room services.¹⁵^,¹⁶ The relationship between limited HL and poorer health outcomes, particularly among patients with chronic disease, may be mediated by sub-optimal physician-patient communication and patient self-management skills.²^,⁶^,⁹^,¹⁷^,¹⁸

Because physicians have difficulty recognizing patients with limited HL,¹⁹^,²⁰ some health systems, HL experts, and accreditation bodies have expressed interest in routinely screening patients.¹⁹^,²¹^–²⁸ However, little is known about whether notifying physicians of their patients' HL limitations affects clinical care processes or outcomes. This trial evaluated the effects of notifying primary care physicians in a public hospital of their patients' limited HL skills. We focused on patients with diabetes because of the association between effective physician-patient communication,²⁹^–³² patients' HL skills,⁷^,³³ and diabetes outcomes.

We sought to determine whether notifying physicians of their patients' limited HL skills affected physicians' visit-specific management strategies, satisfaction, or perceived effectiveness, or patients' self-efficacy.²³^,³⁴^,³⁵ We hypothesized that notification would elicit from physicians more targeted efforts at communication resulting in stronger physician-patient alliances,³⁶ greater physician satisfaction and effectiveness, and enhanced patient self-efficacy.²⁹^,³² These factors are associated with improved patient outcomes, including glycemic control.³⁷^,³⁸ However, we recognized that physician notification could potentially stigmatize patients,²²^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ thereby lowering patient self-efficacy scores.

METHODS

Study Description

We conducted a trial randomizing physicians to receive notification of their patients' limited HL skills. Physicians and patients provided informed consent to participate in a study of doctor-patient communication and barriers to patient understanding. Patients were told their reading comprehension would be measured and potentially conveyed to their physician. The Human Subjects Committee of the University of California San Francisco approved the protocol.

Setting and Participants

The study was conducted at an urban, academic, public hospital. Attending and resident physicians in the affiliated General Internal Medicine and Family Practice clinics provide primary care to patients who are generally poor, ethnically diverse, and publicly insured or uninsured. Resident physicians spend between 1 and 3 half-days per week in these clinics.

During the study period, no diabetes disease management programs were available. Some physicians had attended a local “grand rounds” lecture on limited HL, but there had been no systematic educational interventions to improve physicians' management of patients with limited HL.

This trial was nested within a larger study which explored physicians' communication with their patients who have diabetes.⁷^,¹⁷^,⁴¹ The unit of recruitment was the patient. Physicians were eligible to participate if their primary care panel included a patient enrolled in the study. Physicians were aware a multi-methods study exploring their communication with their diabetic patients was ongoing, and that both they and their patients would be asked to complete study questionnaires.

Patients were eligible to participate if they had type 2 diabetes, were older than 30 years, and spoke English or Spanish. Patients also had to have an assigned physician in the clinic's database for at least 12 months, with at least 1 visit to that physician in the preceding 6 months.

Only patients with limited HL were eligible to participate in this trial, although enrolled physicians were not aware of this eligibility criterion. Exclusion criteria included psychotic disorders, dementia, acute intoxication, end-stage renal disease, and corrected visual acuity worse than 20/50, each of which can interfere with reliable HL measurement.⁴²

Between May and December 2000, a bilingual research assistant approached eligible patients in the clinics' waiting rooms and screened consenting patients for visual problems using a pocket vision screener (Rosenbaum, Graham-Field Surgical Co., New York, NY). Patients completing the study received $5 compensation.

Intervention

We administered to all consenting patients an abbreviated English or Spanish version of the short form of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (s-TOFHLA), a well-established instrument shown to be reliable among English and Spanish speakers.⁴²^,⁴³ This abbreviated version of the s-TOFHLA is composed of 2 reading passages and is administered in 7 minutes.⁴⁴ Using established convention, we categorized HL scores of ≤16 “inadequate,” 17 to 22 “marginal,” and ≥23 “adequate.” Patients with marginal or inadequate HL were considered to have “limited” HL and continued with the trial (Fig. 1).

FIGURE 1

Enrollment and follow-up. HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin.

For intervention physicians, we affixed the following notice to the patient's chart immediately prior to the study visit:

Your patient, Mr/Ms.————, has undergone a screening measure of functional health literacy in [English/Spanish] and was found to have [inadequate/marginal] functional health literacy. Patients with low levels of functional health literacy may be more likely to have difficulties understanding written health materials, following prescribed treatment regimens, or processing oral communication.

We provided no other instructions, educational interventions, or reminders.

Blinding and Randomization

To avoid contamination, we randomized physicians prior to patient recruitment using a random number generator. Patients were assigned to intervention or control group based on their physician's randomization status, which was contained in a sealed envelope opened after the baseline patient interview.

Research assistants discussed neither randomization status nor screening results with patients or physicians. Control physicians were notified of their patients' limited HL after trial completion.

Outcome Measurements

Physician questionnaires were distributed immediately after the study visit and collected within 1 week. Physicians were asked to report which communication-enhancing management strategies they used during the visit. Options reflected consistent recommendations in the literature (current at the time of study design) and included: (a) involving patient's family members or friends,²¹^,⁴⁵ (b) referring to a diabetes educator,²¹ (c) referring to a nutritionist,⁴⁶ (d) using pictures or diagrams,²³^,⁴⁷^,⁴⁸ (e) reviewing understanding of medications,²¹ or (f) spending time educating about diabetes.²¹^,⁴⁵ We chose physicians' management strategies as our primary outcome because improvements in physicians' visit-based behavior is the most proximate intermediate endpoint through which screening in the primary care context might affect patient outcomes.¹⁷^,³¹^,³²^,⁴¹^,⁴⁹

Secondary physician outcomes included visit-specific satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. To measure satisfaction, we adapted 2 previously-published scales measuring physician satisfaction⁵⁰ and frustration⁵¹ into a briefer 6-item scale (Cronbach α=0.8). We also developed a 10-item effectiveness scale that asked physicians to rate the extent to which they impacted their patients' diabetes management in specific areas such as foot care, diet, exercise, and glucose monitoring (Cronbach α=0.8). Using common factor analysis, we demonstrated that these scales measured unique aspects of physicians' experiences (data available upon request). Both scales contained 5-point Likert responses from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Intervention physicians were also asked their prenotification estimation of their patients' HL; whether they felt screening was useful; whether they discussed the results with their patients; and which tools (from a list of 10) would be particularly useful in improving care for their patients with limited HL.

A bilingual research assistant interviewed patients immediately after the study visit or, for the few patients who were unavailable, over the telephone within 1 week. Our primary patient outcome was self-efficacy. We measured self-efficacy using the previously validated Patient-Enablement Instrument, which measures the extent to which the physician visit affects patients' confidence in their ability to successfully manage their chronic disease.⁵²

We also asked patients whether it was “useful to measure how well patients understand written medical information, e.g., a diabetes brochure or a pill bottle.” To assess glycemic control, we obtained patients' glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values from the hospital's database and calculated the change from baseline (most recent value in the 12 months before study enrollment) to follow-up (2 to 9 months after study enrollment).

Data Analysis

We compared baseline characteristics of physicians and patients using χ² tests. Subsequent comparisons were performed using an intention-to-treat analysis at the level of the patient. Results were adjusted for patient clustering within physician using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a symmetric correlation structure.⁵³ Data was analyzed using SAS software.⁵⁴

To assess differences in management strategies between intervention and control physicians, we categorized physicians as “management-intensive” if they employed >3 of the 6 recommended management strategies during the patient visit. We performed a sensitivity analysis dichotomizing this outcome at >2 strategies. We also compared the proportion of physicians using each individual strategy.

We calculated a physician satisfaction score for each patient by averaging responses on the physician satisfaction measure. We categorized the physician as “satisfied” with the visit if the average score ranged from 4 (“agree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). We performed the same dichotomization for physicians' perceived effectiveness.

We used GEE linear or logistic models to compare intervention and control physicians' management strategies, satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness; and intervention and control patients' perceptions of the usefulness of the screening and absolute change in HbA1c. We included in the HbA1c analysis only patients with both baseline and follow-up HbA1c values. For the patient self-efficacy outcome, there was essentially no within-physician correlation. Therefore results are from a standard linear regression model rather than a linear mixed model.

To ensure our results were not due to unbalanced randomization, we performed multivariable modeling adjusting for baseline characteristics that were unequally distributed (P value≤.2). We present unadjusted results in the text, and unadjusted and adjusted results in the tables.

The study was powered to detect a 20% increase in the number of patient visits where physicians employed >3 management strategies (80% power, 2-tailed α=0.05).

RESULTS

Of the 471 potentially eligible patients approached for the larger study, 30 (6%) declined participation and 441 completed the baseline questionnaire and HL screening. 229 (52%) had limited HL skills. Forty-seven of these patients were excluded prior to randomization (Fig. 1). Excluded patients did not significantly differ from randomized patients by gender, ethnicity, age, or HL score.

No physicians of eligible patients refused participation. Sixty-three physicians were randomized, 31 in the intervention group and 32 in the control group. The 182 remaining patients were assigned to intervention (n=95) or control group (n=87) based on their physician's randomization status. The mean cluster size was 2.9 patients per physician (median 2.0, range 1 to 16). Overall, study patients were elderly and ethnically diverse with poorly controlled diabetes (Table 1). Control patients were more likely than intervention patients to have spent fewer than 3 years in a relationship with their physician (P<.001).

Table 1

Baseline Characteristics of the 63 Randomized Physicians and 182 Patients

Compared with control physicians, intervention physicians were more likely to use >3 recommended management strategies during the visit (21% vs 8%, odds ratio (OR)=3.2, P=.04) (Table 2). We found similar results if we dichotomized this outcome at >2 recommended management strategies (unadjusted 44% vs 31%, OR 1.8, P=.05; adjusted 49% vs 32%, OR=2.03, P=.02). With regard to individual strategies, intervention group physicians were more likely to involve patient's family members and friends in their patient discussions and to refer patients to nutritionists.

Table 2

Physicians' Report of Management Strategies Employed, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness During the Visit

Intervention physicians were less likely than control physicians to be satisfied with the visit (81% vs 93%, OR=0.3, P=.01). They also perceived themselves as somewhat less effective in the visit, although this did not reach statistical significance (38% vs 53%, OR=0.5, P=.10).

Intervention physicians overestimated the HL level of 62% of their patients, and felt the screening was useful in 64% of their visits. They discussed screening results with only 2% of their patients, and planned future discussions in 27%. Intervention physicians felt that increased access to allied health professionals (88%), more appropriate educational materials (77%), improved pill-bottle labeling (69%), communication skills training for patients (66%), and case management services (64%) would be useful in improving care for their patients with limited HL.

Patients in the intervention and control groups had similar post-visit self-efficacy scores (12.6 vs 12.9, P=.60) (Table 3). Almost all patients felt the screening was useful, regardless of randomization status (96% vs 97%, P=.77).

Table 3

Patient Outcomes

We included in the HbA1c analysis all 157 eligible patients (86%). The interval between physician notification and follow-up HbA1c was similar in the intervention and control groups (87 vs 106 days, P=.2). HbA1c fell by 0.21% in the intervention group and rose by 0.05% in the control group (P=.26).

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of notifying physicians of their patients' HL skills. Physicians notified of their patients' limited HL were more likely to use management strategies recommended to improve communication with these patients, but felt less satisfied and perceived themselves as marginally less effective than control physicians. While patients in this study considered HL screening to be useful, the increased intensity of physician management did not result in improved patient self-efficacy, at least in the short term.

The increased management intensity of physicians in the intervention group demonstrates that physicians are receptive to HL screening and recognize HL's importance in chronic disease management. Lower satisfaction rates in these physicians, despite their actively engaging in strategies to overcome this communication barrier, suggest that physicians lack appropriate training, evidence-based recommendations, and/or systematic support to best respond. A similar phenomenon has been reported in education research. Teachers who work with students who have barriers to learning are less satisfied than general education teachers,⁵⁵ particularly when adequate training for teachers and system support for students are lacking.⁵⁶ Similarly, in studies of screening for other complex, psychosocial issues such as depression, alcoholism, and domestic violence, physician satisfaction has been achieved by linking screening results with specific educational interventions and structural supports.⁵⁷^–⁶⁰

We measured patients' self-efficacy because of the conflicting hypotheses regarding the effects of HL screening. On the one hand, HL screening could enhance self-efficacy by enabling physicians to employ tailored communication strategies and more realistic goal-setting; on the other hand, it could lower self-efficacy by eliciting feelings of shame in patients. The lack of a difference in self-efficacy scores between the intervention and control group patients suggests that the management strategies physicians employed need to be reinforced over a number of patient visits, had effects that could not be detected with the measures we used, or were not particularly effective.⁶¹

The low rate at which physicians discussed screening results with their patients suggests that physicians felt unprepared to address the subject or were concerned about stigmatizing patients. Physician detection of communication barriers without open acknowledgement and mutual problem-solving with patients is unlikely to improve outcomes,³⁶ and may partially explain our negative patient outcomes. Since patients in our study considered HL measurement to be potentially useful, and intervention group patients did not report lower self-efficacy, physicians should feel less reluctant to discuss this barrier with their patients. Without a more robust measure of patient stigma, however, we cannot definitively determine whether patients who reported the screening to be useful nonetheless may have felt stigmatized.

The lack of patient benefits may illustrate the need to refine our understanding of the mechanisms whereby physician notification of patients' limited HL could lead to improved health outcomes.⁶⁰^,⁶²^,⁶³ In the case of biomedical conditions, acceptable screening tests must detect diseases for which effective treatments exist.⁶⁴ With regard to screening for HL deficits, this prerequisite suggests that widespread screening will not be warranted until rigorous trials identify specific actions clinicians can take to change the trajectory of patients' disease.⁶³

Our study has several limitations. Because we made only a single assessment of many outcomes, we could not determine whether observed differences in physician behaviors between the intervention and control groups were related to unmeasured baseline differences or were sustained over time; whether intervention group patients' self-efficacy scores would have improved over a longer observation period; or whether the screening test itself may have lowered self-efficacy scores in both groups. Second, we relied on physician self-report of management strategies, rather than objective assessment. Prior research, however, has demonstrated a high correlation between physician reports of their counseling strategies and direct observation.⁶⁵ Third, while our study may have overestimated the management strategies of physicians because they were aware they were enrolled in a study, this bias may have disproportionately affected intervention physicians insofar as control physicians did not receive a “control notification.”

Fourth, because some patients may have refused study participation because of misgivings related to HL testing, we may have overestimated the degree to which HL screening is acceptable to patients. Assuming the most conservative scenario, in which all 30 patients who refused participation had limited HL and would have found the screening stigmatizing, 83% of patients would still have found screening to be useful. Fifth, our negative results with regard to glycemic control should be considered inconclusive since our study was underpowered for this outcome and our follow-up time was brief. Finally, our results may not generalize to patients without diabetes, private practice settings, or non-primary care relationships.

The increased attention to HL¹^,⁵ and the evolution of shorter screening instruments²⁵^,²⁷^,²⁸ has increased interest in developing screening programs in the clinical context. This trial suggests we exercise caution before implementing such programs. While it is encouraging that physicians respond to the notification of their patients' limited HL skills, and reassuring that patients report screening to be useful, system-wide training programs and/or support for physicians and patients may be essential to an effective screening program. Future research should explore the ways in which health care providers and systems can more effectively engage patients with limited HL. Without this step, HL screening and notification of physicians of their patients' HL deficits is unlikely to be a powerful tool in improving diabetes outcomes.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Seligman was supported by a DHHS-HRSA Research Fellowship Grant 5 D14HP00178-03-00. Dr. Piette is a VA Research Career Scientist. Dr. Schillinger was supported by a NIH Mentored Clinical Scientist Award K-23 RR16539-03, UCSF Hellman Family Research Award, and a Pfizer Inc. Health Literacy Research Award. Electronic data were made available through the San Francisco General Hospital GCRC grant M01RR00083-42.

REFERENCES

1. Institute of Medicine., editor. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.

2. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs AMA., editor. Health literacy report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA. 1999;281:552–7. [PubMed]

3. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA. 1995;274:1677–82. [PubMed]

4. Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA. 1999;281:545–51. [PubMed]

5. Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Literacy and Health Outcomes. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004.

6. Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Peel J, Baker DW. Health literacy and knowledge of chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;51:267–75. [PubMed]

7. Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288:475–82. [PubMed]

8. Spandorfer JM, Karras DJ, Hughes LA, Caputo C. Comprehension of discharge instructions by patients in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;25:71–4. [PubMed]

9. Williams MV, Baker DW, Honig EG, Lee TM, Nowlan A. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self-care. Chest. 1998;114:1008–15. [PubMed]

10. Kalichman SC, Benotsch E, Suarez T, Catz S, Miller J, Rompa D. Health literacy and health-related knowledge among persons living with HIV/AIDS. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:325–31. [PubMed]

11. Kalichman SC, Rompa D, Cage M. Reliability and validity of self-reported CD4 lymphocyte count and viral load test results in people living with HIV/AIDS. Int J STD AIDS. 2000;11:579–85. [PubMed]

12. Arnold CL, Davis TC, Berkel HJ, Jackson RH, Nandy I, London S. Smoking status, reading level, and knowledge of tobacco effects among low-income pregnant women. Prev Med. 2001;32:313–20. [PubMed]

13. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1027–30. [PubMed]

14. Kalichman SC, Rompa D. Functional health literacy is associated with health status and health-related knowledge in people living with HIV-AIDS. J Acq Immun Defic Syndr. 2000;25:337–44. [PubMed]

15. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS. Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:791–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

16. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1278–83. [PubMed]

17. Schillinger D, Bindman A, Stewart A, Wang F, Piette J. Functional Health Literacy and the quality of physician-patient communication among diabetes patients. Patient Educ and Counsel. 2004;52:315–23. [PubMed]

18. Kalichman SC, Ramachandran B, Catz S. Adherence to combination antiretroviral therapies in HIV patients of low health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:267–73. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

19. Bass PF, III, Wilson JF, Griffith CH, Barnett DR. Residents' ability to identify patients with poor literacy skills. Acad Med. 2002;77:1039–41. [PubMed]

20. Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, Langseth L, Bennett CL, Garcia P. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:938–43. [PubMed]

21. Mayeaux EJ, Jr, Murphy PW, Arnold C, Davis TC, Jackson RH, Sentell T. Improving patient education for patients with low literacy skills. Am Fam Physician. 1996;53:205–11. [PubMed]

22. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, et al. The health care experience of patients with low literacy. Arch Fam Med. 1996;5:329–34. [PubMed]

23. Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD. Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills strategies for clinicians. CA. 1998;48:151–62. [PubMed]

24. Weiss BD, Hart G, McGee DL, D'Estelle S. Health status of illiterate adults relation between literacy and health status among persons with low literacy skills. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1992;5:257–64. [PubMed]

25. Bennett IM, Robbins S, Al-Shamali N, Haecker T. Screening for low literacy among adult caregivers of pediatric patients. Fam Med. 2003;35:585–90. [PubMed]

26. Hospital Provision of Care, Treatment, and Services Crosswalk, Vol. 2004. Washington, DC: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2004.

27. Bass PF, III, Wilson JF, Griffith CH. A shortened instrument for literacy screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:1036–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

28. Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36:588–94. [PubMed]

29. Heisler M, Bouknight RR, Hayward RA, Smith DM, Kerr EA. The relative importance of physician communication, participatory decision making, and patient understanding in diabetes self-management. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:243–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

30. Heisler M, Vijan S, Anderson RM, Ubel PA, Bernstein SJ, Hofer TP. When do patients and their physicians agree on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, and what difference does it make? J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:893–902. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

31. Aljasem LI, Peyrot M, Wissow L, Rubin RR. The impact of barriers and self-efficacy on self-care behaviors in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2001;27:393–404. [PubMed]

32. Piette JD, Schillinger D, Potter MB, Heisler M. Dimensions of patient-provider communication and diabetes self-care in an ethnically diverse population. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:624–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

33. Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, Nurss JR. Relationship of functional health literacy to patients' knowledge of their chronic disease a study of patients with hypertension and diabetes. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:166–72. [PubMed]

34. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumbach K. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA. 2002;288:2469–75. [PubMed]

35. Bandura A. Self-efficacy toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215. [PubMed]

36. Lipkin M, Putnam SM, Lazare A. The Medical Interview: Clinical Care, Education, and Research. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1995.

37. Alazri MH, Neal RD. The association between satisfaction with services provided in primary care and outcomes in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Med. 2003;20:486–90. [PubMed]

38. Fernandez A, Schillinger D, Grumbach K, et al. Physician language ability and cultural competence an exploratory study of communication with Spanish-speaking patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:167–74. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

39. Parikh NS, Parker RM, Nurss JR, Baker DW, Williams MV. Shame and health literacy the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Counseling. 1996;27:33–9. [PubMed]

40. Baker DW. Reading between the lines deciphering the connections between literacy and health [editorial; comment] J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:315–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

41. Schillinger D, Piette J, Grumbach K, et al. Closing the loop physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:83–90. [PubMed]

42. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Counseling. 1999;38:33–42. [PubMed]

43. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:537–41. [PubMed]

44. Nurss JR, Parker RM, Williams MV, Baker DW. TOFHLA: test of functional health literacy in adults. Snow Camp, NC: Peppercorn Books & Press; 1995.

45. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1996.

46. Keyserling TC, Samuel-Hodge CD, Ammerman AS, et al. A randomized trial of an intervention to improve self-care behaviors of African-American women with type 2 diabetes impact on physical activity. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1576–83. [PubMed]

47. Houts PS, Bachrach R, Witmer JT, Tringali CA, Bucher JA, Localio RA. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions. Patient Educ Counseling. 1998;35:83–8. [PubMed]

48. Williams MV, Davis T, Parker RM, Weiss BD. The role of health literacy in patient-physician communication. Fam Med. 2002;34:383–9. [PubMed]

49. (AHRQ). Strategies for Improving Minority Healthcare Quality. Report No.: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 90, 2004 January.

50. Suchman AL, Markakis K, Beckman HB, Frankel R. A model of empathic communication in the medical interview [see comments] JAMA. 1997;277:678–82. [PubMed]

51. Levinson W, Stiles WB, Inui TS, Engle R. Physician frustration in communicating with patients. Med Care. 1993;31:285–95. [PubMed]

52. Howie JG, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15:165–71. [PubMed]

53. Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. Stat Med. 1998;17:1261–91. [PubMed]

54. Statistical Analyses System (SAS). Version 8. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1999.

55. Lobosco AF, Newman DL. Teaching special needs populations and teacher job satisfaction implications for teacher education and staff development. Urban Educ. 1992;27:21–31.

56. Rosenberg MS, Griffin CC, Kilgore KL, Carpenter SL. Beginning teachers in special education a model for providing individualized support. Teacher Educ Spec Educ. 1997;20:301–21.

57. Rost K, Nutting P, Smith JL, Elliott CE, Dickinson M. Managing depression as a chronic disease a randomised trial of ongoing treatment in primary care. BMJ. 2002;325:934. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

58. Pignone MP, Gaynes BN, Rushton JL, et al. Screening for depression in adults a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:765–76. [PubMed]

59. Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J. Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:387–96. [PubMed]

60. Saitz R, Horton NJ, Sullivan LM, Moskowitz MA, Samet JH. Addressing alcohol problems in primary care a cluster randomized, controlled trial of a systems intervention. The Screening and Intervention in Primary Care (SIP) Study. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:372–82. [PubMed]

61. Krichbaum K, Aarestad V, Buethe M. Exploring the connection between self-efficacy and effective diabetes self-management. Diabetes Educ. 2003;29:653–62. [PubMed]

62. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force., editor. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd edn. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.

63. Lachs MS. Screening for family violence what's an evidence-based doctor to do? Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:399–400. [PubMed]

64. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet. 2002;359:881–4. [PubMed]

65. Roter DL, Russell NK. Validity of physician self-report in tracking patient education objectives. Health Educ Q. 1994;21:27–38. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of General Internal Medicine are provided here courtesy of
Society of General Internal Medicine