Health Literacy Research and Practice (Oct 2019)

Evaluation of an Australian Health Literacy Program Delivered in Adult Education Settings

  • Kirsten J. McCaffery,
  • Suzanne Morony,
  • Danielle M. Muscat,
  • Andrew Hayen,
  • Heather L. Shepherd,
  • Haryana M. Dhillon,
  • Sian K. Smith,
  • Erin Cvejic,
  • Wedyan Meshreky,
  • Karen Luxford,
  • Don Nutbeam

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20190402-01
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 3, no. 3
pp. s42 – s57

Abstract

Read online

Background: Adult education targeting health literacy (HL) may bring added value in the form of improved health. Objective: This study evaluated the effects of a HL program as part of an adult education curriculum for adults with low literacy and numeracy. Methods: This was a partial-cluster randomized controlled trial among 308 adults enrolled in basic education programs in Australia. Of the 308 participants, 141 (46%) were randomized to either the standard program (language, literacy, and numeracy [LLN]), or the HL intervention (LLN with embedded health content); the remainder (n = 167) were allocated to standard intervention programs by the education provider at the class level. The main outcomes were functional HL, self-reported confidence, patient activation, generic HL (ie, HLQ, health knowledge, and self-reported health behavior). Data were collected at baseline, immediately after, and at 6 months post-intervention. Key Results: Of the 308 participants, 71% had limited literacy and 60% spoke a language other than English at home. Both interventions benefited participants, with improvements from baseline to immediate follow up on individual-level functional HL (e.g., reading a thermometer; HL group 18.4% vs. standard group 7.2%; p = .001), confidence (HL group 0.34 vs. standard group 0.06; p = .014) and health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) subscales. At 6 months, improvements in confidence (p < .001) and some HLQ measures were retained. A consistent pattern of increased improvement in the HL program was observed compared to the standard program, although only some measures reached statistical significance: reading a food label (HL group 6.03/10 correct vs. standard group 5.49/10 correct; p = .022); confidence (p = .008); ability to actively manage health (HLQ) (p = .017), and health knowledge at 6 months (HL group 68% vs. standard group 60% correct, p = .052). HL participants reported being more likely to share course information and rated the program more useful to understand their health. Conclusions: Improving language, literacy, and numeracy generally has potential public health benefits that are retained at 6 months. Integrating health content adds further value to adult basic learning, is feasible, and potentially scalable.

Keywords