Does stimulating self-care increase self-care behaviour for minor illnesses of Dutch and Turkish inhabitants of a deprived area in The Netherlands?

Plass, Anne Marie; Timmermans, Daniëlle R.M.; Wal, Gerrit van der

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.005

Cited by 1 publication

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some articles reported different aspects of the same study or data set: Plass et al, 75,76 Rutten et al, 77,78 and Hibberd et al 79 and Wagner et al 80 There were 64 studies in total. Other articles were written by the same author, testing the same intervention in different ways on different populations, [81][82][83] with Herman and Mayer 82 undertaken as a pilot for Herman and Jackson.…”

Section: Articles Reporting the Same Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[108][109][110][111][112] Many such interventions reported the corollary rationale of reducing unnecessary primary or emergency care use as a result of improved knowledge. 53,75,76,103,113,114 Unlike the primary and emergency care interventions, the majority of community and workplace-based interventions had the specific aim of improving self-care and participants' knowledge, both of illnesses (including some specific minor problems such as childhood fever or cough) [79][80][81][82][115][116][117][118][119][120][121] and when to access what service. 122,123 A smaller number of such studies explicitly reported that the aim of an intervention was to reduce use of primary care, 124 emergency care 125,126 or health services generally.…”

Section: Rationale For the Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interventions were delivered either by a specific individual or designated team of health-care staff, (e.g. a GP, paediatric ED physician or nurse), [75][76][77][78]88,[99][100][101][102]107,109,112,130,131 a service generally (e.g. the primary care practice) 84,86,92,106,132,133 or, in the case of some workplace or community interventions, an employer or an external organisation.…”

Section: Rationale For the Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…90,111,119,134,135 However, the majority of interventions directed at specific groups of patients or carers were delivered in direct response to a potentially unnecessary primary care or emergency care consultation and with the explicit purpose of preventing future, similar consultations. Such interventions were delivered principally at the time of the index consultation, [75][76][77][78]83,85,94,95,[99][100][101][102][103]109,130,131,136 but could also be delivered a little time later. 88,89,92,108,112,137 Another large group of interventions, principally in the community group, were delivered to people for consideration in the home setting.…”

Section: Rationale For the Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen articles (15 studies) assessed leaflets/booklets and an interactive session with a person to educate people about minor health problems (Table 10). Ten were offered at a specific time in a patient's care [75][76][77][78]83,85,99,102,112,131 and seven at a general time. 81,82,120,121,127,134,135 They are presented in Table 10 in alphabetical order within these two groups.…”

Section: Size and Quality Of The Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Health literacy interventions for reducing the use of primary and emergency services for minor health problems: a systematic review

O’Cathain

Foster

Preston

et al. 2022

Health Soc Care Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health literacy is the ability to find information, understand information, know how to act on information and know which services to use. Having higher levels of health literacy may help patients to look after minor problems themselves (self-care). It may also help to reduce patients’ perceived need for contacting health services for minor health problems, to reduce the perceived urgency of problems or to improve patients’ ability to identify and choose from the range of available services. Interventions to improve health literacy for minor health problems have been evaluated, but their effectiveness at reducing use of primary care and emergency services has not been synthesised. Objectives The key objectives were as follows: (1) to construct a typology of interventions that aim to reduce primary or emergency care use, (2) to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of different types of health literacy interventions and (3) to consider how stakeholders in the UK could operationalise the evidence. Interventions The interventions being reviewed were initiatives that help members of the population to self-care or make decisions about whether or not and where to seek health care for minor health problems. Design This study was a systematic review with stakeholder involvement. Data sources and review methods A meeting was held with 14 stakeholders (including patients, carers and the public) to guide the systematic review. This was followed by a multicomponent review of quantitative and qualitative research. Database literature searches were undertaken in Ovid MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Interscience), EMBASE (via OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO), PsycINFO (via OVID), Web of Science and Sociological Abstracts. The search was limited to English-language publications from 1990–2020. To assess study quality, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for non-randomised studies. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. The review was followed by a meeting with 16 stakeholders to interpret the results. Results A total of 67 articles (64 studies) were included: 37 from the USA, 16 from the UK, 12 from the rest of Europe and two from the rest of the world. There were seven intervention types: navigation tools directing people to the range of services available (n = 7); written education about managing minor health problems in booklet or website format (n = 17); person-delivered education (n = 5); written education with person-delivered education (n = 17); multicomponent of written education, person-delivered education and mass media campaign (n = 5); self-triage (n = 9); and other (n = 7). Our team assessed the readability and user-friendliness of interventions, and found that these varied widely. When assessed, most studies measuring satisfaction with the intervention, enablement and perceived changes to behaviour showed positive results. Of 30 articles reporting impact on emergency department attendances, 19 (63%) showed a reduction, and 16/27 (59%) articles measuring impact on general practice consultations showed a reduction. Variation in the evidence base was not explained by any research, context or intervention characteristics. Only eight articles measured safety: these identified no problems. Limitations There was inconsistency in how the outcomes were measured, so a meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions Health literacy interventions have potential to affect emergency and primary care use, but the evidence base is inconsistent. Future research It is important to continue to evaluate these types of initiatives. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020214206. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract