Dutch health websites and their ability to inform people with low health literacy

Objective To evaluate whether Dutch online health information (OHI) generally reflects message elements that support information processing and understanding among people with low health literacy. Methods We content-analyzed one hundred Dutch webpages about Ebola, fibromyalgia, ALS, losing weight, borderline personality disorder, hemorrhoids, ADD, bladder infection, shingles, and chicken pox. The codebook covered the following domains: images and videos, readability level, Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), advertising, interactive features, and reliability cues. Results Thirty-seven webpages contained informative images that visualized the text. Twelve webpages incorporated videos, six of which were animations. Readability varied widely, but 79.2% of the texts exceeded the recommended B1 level. Half of the webpages had inadequate SAM scores; five were classified as superior. Interactive features were infrequently used. Many webpages included only a few elements that help users evaluate the reliability of OHI. Four presented a quality label. Conclusion Over a wide range of health-related topics, Dutch OHI does not generally contain message elements that improve information processing among people with low health literacy. Practice implications Communication professionals should make better use of digital message features. Videos, narration, and interactivity are scarcely used but can be valuable for people with low health literacy

Uncovering communication strategies used in language-discordant consultations with people who are migrants: Qualitative interviews with healthcare providers

Background: Global migration has led to a sharp increase in the number of language-discordant consultations (LDCs) in healthcare. Evidence on how healthcare providers (HCPs) meet migrant patients' needs while mitigating language barriers is lacking.Design: Using purposive and snowball sampling, we recruited twenty-seven Dutch HCPs (Mage = 45.07, SD = 11.46) and conducted semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative, open-ended data for identifying the communication strategies used with migrant patients in LDCs. We analysed the transcripts using deductive and inductive approaches (e.g., constant comparative method from Grounded Theory). Final pattern codes (i.e., key themes) were discussed among the research team until mutual agreement had been achieved.Results: Five key themes emerged from the analyses: HCPs often ‘got-by’ with (1) instrumental and (2) affective communication strategies used in language-concordant consultations to start medical consultations. When some instrumental communication strategies were deemed ineffective (e.g., lingua franca, gesturing, etc.) to bridge language barriers, HCPs turned to (3) incorporating digital tools (e.g., Google Translate). When HCPs were unable to communicate with migrant patients at all, (4) informal, ad-hoc and professional interpreters were involved. Finally, HCPs often (5) involved additional support to engage migrant patients to engage in treatment-related behaviours.Discussion and Conclusions: Our results highlight the importance of raising awareness among HCPs about using various combinations of different strategies. The development of a guideline indicating the optimal combination of communication strategies for different medical consultation goals may be useful in reshaping the current communication behaviour of HCPs in LDCs.Patient or Public Contribution: HCPs were the study population involved in this qualitative study. Refugee health advisors, general practitioners and linguistic specialists (i.e., members of the Right2Health consortium) with experience with the Dutch healthcare system were involved throughout the development of this research. This includes a review of the research question, participant information sheet and interview topic guide as well as providing interpretations of the data and feedback to this manuscript