Self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in older adults: a systematic review

ObjectivesTo give an overview over the associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in older adults.DesignA systematic literature review of quantitative studies published in English and German.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and LIVIVO were searched.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies had to examine the associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence in the elderly (samples including ≥66% of ≥60 years old) and had to use a quantitative methodology and had to be written in English or German.Data extraction and synthesisAll studies were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was applied to analyse all included studies thematically. Quality assessment was conducted using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.ResultsWe found 2313 studies, of which nine publications from eight studies were included in this review. Five studies reported a majority of participants with limited health literacy, one study reported a majority of participants with adequate health literacy, and three publications from two studies only reported mean levels of health literacy. Eight publications from seven studies used self-reports to measure medication adherence, while one study used the medication possession ratio. Overall, six publications from five studies reported significantly positive associations between health literacy and medication adherence while two studies reported positive but non-significant associations between both constructs and one study reported mixed results.ConclusionIn this review, associations between self-reported health literacy and medication adherence are rather consistent, indicating positive associations between both constructs in older adults. However, concepts and measures of health literacy and medication adherence applied in the included studies still show a noteworthy amount of heterogeneity (eg, different use of cutoffs). These results reveal the need for more differentiated research in this area.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141028

The effect of minimum volume standards in hospitals (MIVOS) — protocol of a systematic review

Abstract Background The volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations. Methods To be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019). Discussion This systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4202231888