Healthcare professionals (HCPs) can play a key role in promoting health literacy (HL) in patients to help them navigate the healthcare system effectively. This involves assisting patients to locate, comprehend and evaluate health information. HCPs should assess patients’ health literacy needs and check the patient´s understanding to communicate adequate health information. This review investigates the agreement between the patients’ and HCPs assessment of patients’ HL. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library was performed in November 2019. The search yielded 6762 citations, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The following HL measurement instruments were completed by the patients in the included studies: REALM (n = 2), REALM-R (n = 1), S-TOFHLA (n = 1), NVS (n = 1), SILS (n = 1), HLSI-SF (n = 1) and HLS-EU-Q16 (n = 1). The HCPs assessed patients’ HL by answering questions that reflect the content of standardized tools. Six studies reported that a high proportion of patients assigned to have HL needs based on their self-report were overestimated by their HCPs in terms of the HL level. The results demonstrated that HCPs had difficulty determining patients’ HL adequately. Differences between the HL estimation of HCPs and the actual HL skills of patients might lead to communication problems.

Background: Based on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance.Objective: This article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health‐care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used.Search strategy: Three electronic databases were searched on 22 May 2018. The search was not limited to any time period or language.Inclusion criteria: The included studies reported the identification and prioritization of research priorities involving patients, relatives and caregivers. Each included paper addressed a specific ICD‐coded health problem, and at least one‐third of the sample involved in the prioritization process was affected by the health problem.Data extraction and synthesis: The 10 top‐ranked research priorities were included in the thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, a system of identified themes and subthemes was developed from the research priorities. Each research priority was assigned to one research theme.Main results: The priority lists of 34 publications involving 331 research priorities were included. Nine main themes represent the content of the research priorities. The most frequently represented main themes are ‘Treatment’, ‘Patients’ and ‘Health condition’. The distribution of the research priorities varied depending on the health conditions and prioritization methods.Discussion and conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the overarching research themes in research priorities of affected individuals. The results can guide future patient‐oriented research.

Aims: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly being used in the treatment of advanced heart failure. Left ventricular assist device patients frequently report improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) post-implantation. However, HRQOL varies over time and between patients, which can be explained by patient-related and environmental factors, as individual studies suggest. This review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on factors influencing HRQOL of LVAD patients. Methods and results: We systematically searched the databases PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for qualitative studies on factors influencing HRQOL of patients with continuous flow LVADs. The included papers were synthesized using a thematic synthesis. The results were validated in discussion with a patient and practical implications were jointly developed. We included 11 papers and developed 7 themes that represent influencing factors for HRQOL of LVAD patients: disease experiences, emotional reactivity, heart failure and mechanical circulatory support symptoms, medical care, self-care, self-concept, and social environment. Conclusion: The identified themes highlight influencing factors on HRQOL. These help to explain variation in patient outcomes and to better consider the individual situation in rehabilitation. Based on the results, four strategies are proposed for promoting psychosocial outcomes: facilitate self-care, ensure social support, offer psychosocial support, and manage patient expectations.

Health literacy-sensitive communication has been found to be an important dimension of organizational health literacy measured from the patients’ perspective. Little is known about the role of health literacy-sensitive communication in complex care structures. Therefore, our aim was to assess which hospital characteristics (in terms of process organization) and patient characteristics (e.g., age, chronic illness, etc.) contribute to better perceptions of health literacy-sensitive communication, as well as whether better health literacy-sensitive communication is associated with better patient reported experiences. Data were derived from a patient survey conducted in 2020 in four clinical departments of a university hospital in Germany. Health literacy-sensitive communication was measured with the HL-COM scale. Data from 209 patients (response rate 24.2%) were analyzed with a structural equation model (SEM). Results revealed that no patient characteristics were associated with HL-COM scores. Better process organization as perceived by patients was associated with significantly better HL-COM scores, and, in turn, better HL-COM scores were associated with more patient-reported social support provided by physicians and nurses as well as fewer unmet information needs. Investing into good process organization might improve health literacy-sensitive communication, which in turn has the potential to foster the patient–provider relationship as well as to reduce unmet information needs of patients.

The term health literacy (HL) comprises the handling of health information and disease-specific and generic self-management skills, especially relevant for patients with chronic conditions. Health care professionals (HCPs) should correctly identify patients’ communication needs and their HL levels. Therefore, the aims of the study were (1) to determine inpatient medical rehabilitation patients’ HL based on self-assessment, (2) to evaluate changes from admission to discharge, (3) to identify HCPs estimation of patients’ HL, and (4) to compare the estimated patient HL by patients and HCPs. A combined cross-sectional and longitudinal study was conducted in an orthopedic rehabilitation center in Germany. The multidimensional Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) was filled in by patients (admission, discharge). An adapted version was administered to HCPs (n = 32) in order to assess HL of individual patients. Data from 287 patients were used for the longitudinal analysis, and comparison was based on n = 278 cases with at least two HL estimations. The results showed a significant increase in HL in five of nine scales with small effect sizes. Moreover, HCPs mostly provided higher scores than patients, and agreement was poor to fair. Differences between the HL estimation might lead to communication problems, and communication training could be useful.