-
Res Social Adm Pharm · Sep 2013
Assessing health literacy practices in a community pharmacy environment: experiences using the AHRQ Pharmacy Health Literacy Assessment Tool.
- Katherine S O'Neal, Kimberly M Crosby, Michael J Miller, Kelly A Murray, and Michelle E Condren.
- Department of Pharmacy, Clinical and Administrative Sciences, University of Oklahoma College of Pharmacy, 4502 E. 41st Street, Tulsa, OK 74135, USA. Electronic address: Katherine-Oneal@ouhsc.edu.
- Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Sep 1; 9 (5): 564-96.
BackgroundThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) developed the tool, "Is Our Pharmacy Meeting Patients' Needs? Pharmacy Health Literacy Assessment Tool" to evaluate health literacy preparedness of pharmacy environments from patient, staff, and environmental perspectives. The tool was designed at a clinic-based, outpatient pharmacy of a large, urban, public hospital. Despite the ready availability of this tool and the encouragement of AHRQ to adapt it to other environments, there is no published literature on the dissemination and translation of this tool in the community pharmacy environment.ObjectivesThe five objectives of this study were to: (1) pilot the AHRQ tool "Is Our Pharmacy Meeting Patients' Needs? Pharmacy Health Literacy Assessment Tool" in a community pharmacy environment; (2) evaluate and adapt the tool; (3) describe the use of health literacy practices from patient, staff, and independent auditor perspectives using the revised tool; (4) evaluate the effect of a low-intensity educational health literacy awareness program; and (5) identify opportunities to improve health literacy-sensitive practices in the community pharmacy environment.MethodThe study employed a mixed method, posttest-only control group design using community pharmacies in the Tulsa, OK area. Participants included community pharmacists, staff, patients, and independent auditors. Select pharmacy staff members were invited to receive a health literacy training program delivered by a nationally-recognized health literacy expert to raise awareness of health literacy issues. Approximately eight months after the program, pharmacy staffs were surveyed using a written instrument, patients were interviewed by telephone, and the study investigators performed independent environmental audits in each of the selected pharmacies. Results from auditor evaluations, staff survey responses, and patient interviews were compared for similarities and differences to provide a multidimensional perspective about the use of health literacy-sensitive practices.ResultsAfter piloting and adapting the AHRQ tool for the community pharmacy environment, 60 patients completed telephone interviews, 31 staff members completed surveys, and four independent auditors completed environmental audits in six study pharmacies using the revised data collection instruments. The majority of patients and staff were in agreement that written materials were easy to read. However, the auditors did not report equally high agreement regarding the readability qualities of the written materials. While the majority of staff reported use of literacy-sensitive communication techniques with patients, only a minority of patients reported actual communication with the pharmacist and use of literacy-sensitive communication techniques. At trained pharmacies, a significantly larger proportion of patients reported that the pharmacist spent enough time answering their questions (100% vs. 87%, P = 0.038), but a smaller proportion reported the pharmacists reviewed important information from the written information provided (30% vs. 57%, P = 0.035). A significantly smaller proportion of pharmacy staff also reported using the repeat-back technique at the trained pharmacies (40% vs. 79%, P = 0.035).ConclusionThis project is the first to report piloting, revision, and implementation of the AHRQ Health Literacy Assessment Tool in a community pharmacy practice setting. In addition to adapting data collection instruments and implementation strategies, opportunities that target training to facilitate use of literacy-sensitive practices and active patient engagement with literacy-sensitive communication techniques were identified.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.