The terms multivariate and multivariable are often used interchangeably in the public health literature. However, these terms actually represent 2 very distinct types of analyses. We define the 2 types of analysis and assess the prevalence of use of the statistical term multivariate in a 1-year span of articles published in the American Journal of Public Health. Our goal is to make a clear distinction and to identify the nuances that make these types of analyses so distinct from one another.

In this commentary, we discuss the science of stakeholder engagement in research. We propose a classification system with definitions to determine whe

Objectives: The objective was to determine whether patients with low health literacy have higher emergency department (ED) utilization and higher ED recidivism than patients with adequate health literacy.Methods: The study was conducted at an urban academic ED with more than 95,000 annual visits that is part of a 13‐hospital health system, using electronic records that are captured in a central data repository. As part of a larger, cross‐sectional, convenience sample study, health literacy testing was performed using the short test of functional health literacy in adults (S‐TOFHLA) and standard test thresholds identifying those with inadequate, marginal, and adequate health literacy. The authors collected patients' demographic and clinical data, including items known to affect recidivism. This was a structured electronic record review directed at determining 1) the median number of total ED visits in this health system within a 2‐year period and 2) the proportion of patients with each level of health literacy who had return visits within 3, 7, and 14 days of index visits. Descriptive data for demographics and ED returns are reported, stratified by health literacy level. The Mantel‐Haenszel chi‐square was used to test whether there is an association between health literacy and ED recidivism. A negative binomial multivariable model was performed to examine whether health literacy affects ED use, including variables significant at the 0.1 alpha level on bivariate analysis and retaining those significant at an alpha of 0.05 in the final model.Results: Among 431 patients evaluated, 13.2% had inadequate, 10% had marginal, and 76.3% had adequate health literacy as identified by S‐TOFHLA. Patients with inadequate health literacy had higher ED utilization compared to those with adequate health literacy (p = 0.03). Variables retained in the final model included S‐TOFHLA score, number of medications, having a personal doctor, being a property owner, race, insurance, age, and simple comorbidity score. During the study period, 118 unique patients each made at least one return ED visit within a 14‐day period. The proportion of patients with inadequate health literacy making at least one return visit was higher than that of patients with adequate health literacy at 14 days, but was not significantly higher within 3 or 7 days.Conclusions: In this single‐center study, higher utilization of the ED by patients with inadequate health literacy when compared to those with adequate health literacy was observed. Patients with inadequate health literacy made a higher number of return visits at 14 days but not at 3 or 7 days.

Introduction. Participation in the decision-making process and health literacy may both affect health outcomes; data on how these factors are related among diverse groups are limited. This study examined the relationship between health literacy and decision-making preferences in a medically underserved population. Methods. We analyzed a sample of 576 primary care patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the independent association of health literacy (measured by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine–Revised) and patients’ decision-making preferences (physician directed or patient involved), controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and gender. We tested whether having a regular doctor modified this association. Results. Adequate health literacy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7; P = 0.009) was significantly associated with preferring patient-involved decision making, controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Having a regular doctor did not modify this relationship. Males were significantly less likely to prefer patient-involved decision making (OR = 0.65; P = 0.024). Discussion. Findings suggest health literacy affects decision-making preferences in medically underserved patients. More research is needed on how factors, such as patient knowledge or confidence, may influence decision-making preferences, particularly for those with limited health literacy.

Objective Recommended as a ‘universal precaution’ for improving provider–patient communication, teach-back has a limited evidence base. Discharge from the emergency department (ED) to home is an important high-risk transition of care with potential for miscommunication of critical information. We examined whether teach-back improves: comprehension and perceived comprehension of discharge instructions and satisfaction among patients with limited health literacy (LHL) in the ED. Methods We performed a randomized, controlled study among adult patients with LHL, randomized to teach-back or standard discharge instructions. Patients completed an audio-recorded structured interview evaluating comprehension and perceived comprehension of (1) diagnosis, (2) ED course, (3) post-ED care, and (4) reasons to return and satisfaction using four Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questions. Concordance with the medical record was rated using a five-level scale. We analyzed differences between groups using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Results Patients randomized to receive teach-back had higher comprehension of post-ED care areas: post-ED medication (P < 0.02), self-care (P < 0.03), and follow-up instructions (P < 0.0001), but no change in patient satisfaction or perceived comprehension. Conclusion Teach-back appears to improve comprehension of post-ED care instructions but not satisfaction or perceived comprehension. Our data from a randomized, controlled study support the effectiveness of teach-back in a busy clinical setting. Further research is needed to test the utility and feasibility of teach-back for routine use including its impacts on distal outcomes.

The increasing importance of genomic information in clinical care heightens the need to examine how individuals understand, value, and communicate about this information. Based on a conceptual framework of genomics-related health literacy, we examined whether health literacy was related to knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived importance of genetics and family health history (FHH) and communication about FHH in a medically underserved population. The analytic sample was composed of 624 patients at a primary care clinic in a large urban hospital. About half of the participants (47%) had limited health literacy; 55% had no education beyond high school, and 58% were Black. In multivariable models, limited health literacy was associated with lower genetic knowledge (β = −0.55, SE = 0.10, p < .0001), lower awareness of FHH (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.28, 0.90], p = .020), and greater perceived importance of genetic information (OR = 1.95, 95% CI [1.27, 3.00], p = .0022) but lower perceived importance of FHH information (OR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.26, 0.86], p = .013) and more frequent communication with a doctor about FHH (OR = 2.02, 95% CI [1.27, 3.23], p = .0032). The findings highlight the importance of considering domains of genomics-related health literacy (e.g., knowledge, oral literacy) in developing educational strategies for genomic information. Health literacy research is essential to avoid increasing disparities in information and health outcomes as genomic information reaches more patients.