BackgroundIn the last decade, the attention for health literacy has increased in the European Union. This is due to three main reasons. First, reviews have shown that inadequate health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes, higher health care use and expenditure. Second, in all European countries the population is aging and the number of chronically ill people is rising. Improving health literacy in this group can offer greater opportunities to take an active part in society, be independent and improve quality of life. Third, since most research on health literacy has been conducted outside Europe and relatively little is known about the development of health literacy interventions and its effects on outcome measures in European countries. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the European Union published between 1995 and 2018.MethodsSearches have been performed in Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and SCOPUS for publications on health literacy intervention studies in European Union countries. Studies were included if the research was conducted in one or more Member States of the European Union, the publication described an intervention study, the intervention was aimed at health literacy, the publication described an outcome measure related to health literacy and the publication was written in English, French or German.ResultsA total of 23 studies were included. Three types of interventions were identified; aimed at improving health literacy, tailored to different health literacy levels and aimed at improving health outcomes in general that differentiated in effects for people with different health literacy levels. Most interventions identified in the review focus on the functional level of health literacy or numeracy. The strength of evidence from the European health literacy intervention studies was low and there was a huge heterogeneity in study design, measurement tools and outcomes measured.ConclusionsPromising interventions were tailored to the needs of patients, addressing functional, interactive and critical skills and use not difficult animated spoken text. Future research should focus on the development and assessment of such interventions and use stronger designs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6331-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundIn the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) and community nurses play a central role in the palliative care for home-dwelling patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. To optimize the palliative care provision at home, it is important to have insight in the elements that patients and relatives consider essential for high-quality palliative care, and whether these essentials are present in the actual care they receive.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 patients with advanced cancer and 14 relatives. The participants discussed their experiences with the care and support they received from the GP and community nurses, and their views on met and unmet needs. Interview data were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis.ResultsPatients as well as relatives considered it important that their GP and community nursing staff are medically proficient, available, person-focused and proactive. Also, proper information transfer between care professionals and clear procedures when asking for certain resources or services were considered essential for good palliative care at home. Most interviewees indicated that these essential elements were generally present in the care they received. However, the requirements of ‘proper information transfer between professionals’ and ‘clear and rapid procedures’ were mentioned as more difficult to meet in actual practice. Patients and relatives also emphasized that an alert and assertive attitude on their own part was vital in ensuring they received the care they need. They expressed worries about other people who are less vigilant regarding the care they receive, or who have no family to support them in this.ConclusionsMedical proficiency, availability, a focus on the person, proper information transfer between professionals, clear procedures and proactivity on the part of GPs and community nursing staff are considered essential for good palliative care at home. Improvements are particularly warranted with regard to collaboration and information transfer between professionals, and current bureaucratic procedures. It is important for care professionals to ensure that the identified essential elements for high-quality palliative care at home are met, particularly for patients and relatives who are not so alert and assertive.

BackgroundDying in the preferred setting is an indicator of good palliative care quality. Most people prefer to die at home. But does the quality of care as perceived by their relatives vary depending on the care setting that is the place of death?The aim is to compare (from the relatives perspective) whether there are perceived differences in the quality of palliative care between the settings in which people die.MethodsMultivariate linear regression analyses have been carried out using an existing dataset containing information collected using the relatives’ version of the Consumer Quality Index (CQ-index) Palliative Care. The dataset includes 1368 relatives of patients with a wide variety of conditions who died in various locations: at home, in hospital, in residential care for the elderly, a hospice, palliative care unit or in another institution (e.g. institutions for people with intellectual disabilities or mental healthcare institutions). The relatives were the first contacts (family members or other people close to the patient) and they received the survey between 6 weeks and 6 months after the bereavement.ResultsBased on the raw data, differences between locations in terms of the perceived quality of care initially appeared inconsistent. The multivariate regression analyses however showed that relatives of people who died at home were generally the most positive about the palliative care that the patient and they themselves received when the patient was dying. The care provided by hospices also received a relatively good rating. In hospitals and in residential settings for care of the elderly, the care was rated less highly by the relatives.ConclusionsThe quality of palliative care as experienced from the relatives’ perspective is highest when the patient dies at home or in a hospice. This is an argument for letting people die at home, if they so wish, as far as possible and feasible.

BackgroundIn many countries, GPs and home care nurses are involved in care for patients with advanced cancer. Given the varied and complex needs of these patients, providing satisfactory care is a major challenge for them. We therefore aimed to study which aspects of care patients, GPs and home care nurses consider important and whether patients receive these aspects.MethodsSeventy-two Dutch patients with advanced cancer, 87 GPs and 26 home care nurses rated the importance of support when experiencing symptoms, respect for patients’ autonomy and information provision. Patients also rated whether they received these aspects. Questionnaires were based on the CQ index palliative care.ResultsAlmost all patients rated information provision and respect for their autonomy as important. The majority also rated support when suffering from specific symptoms as important, especially support when in pain. In general, patients received the care they considered important. However, 49% of those who considered it important to receive support when suffering from fatigue and 23% of those who wanted to receive information on the expected course of their illness did not receive this or only did so sometimes.ConclusionFor most patients with advanced cancer, the palliative care that they receive matches what they consider important. Support for patients experiencing fatigue may need more attention. When symptoms are difficult to control, GPs and nurses may still provide emotional support and practical advice. Furthermore, we recommend that GPs discuss patients’ need for information about the expected course of their illness.