General versus disease-specific health literacy in patients with breast cancer: a cross-sectional study

Evaluating Patient Experience in a Multidisciplinary Breast Cancer Clinic: A Prospective Study

Background: Multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) are a care model in which patients see several physicians across specialties and/or other allied health professionals in a single appointment in a shared space. This study sought to better understand patients' experiences with breast cancer (BC) MDC. Methods: A total of 429 patients diagnosed with BC and seen in a MDC between November 2020 and November 2021 were invited to participate in a patient experience survey. Results: In total, 116 patient respondents (27%) with representative demographics described their experience. Most patients report feeling "somewhat prepared" for the BC MDC experience (67%, median = 3.7, interquartile range [IQR] = 1.9), but with variability. The major areas of positive feedback were that the MDC was convenient (89.3%), efficient use of time (65.2%), and a good way to get questions answered (65.2%). Major criticisms included that the MDC was overwhelming (16.1%) and/or too long (4.5%). When asked to rate the top three satisfaction areas of MDCs, patients chose seeing multiple providers during a single visit (80.4%), communication about the process before and throughout the MDC (48.2%), and inclusivity of their support system (38.4%). The highest rated dissatisfiers were the volume of information presented (42.9%) and patients' emotional comfort (anxiety/stress) during MDC appointment (30.2%). Overall, 83% of patients with BC rate the MDC experience as excellent (median = 4.8, IQR = 0.9) and would be "very likely" to recommend BC MDC (median = 4.8, IQR = 0.9). Conclusion: Patients value seeing multiple providers simultaneously in an environment inclusive of their support systems, which is described as convenient and efficient. Improving emotional distress is a key opportunity to improve patient experience.

Assessment Tools for Measuring Health Literacy and Digital Health Literacy in a Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review

Assessment of (digital) health literacy in the hospital can raise staff awareness and facilitate tailored communication, leading to improved health outcomes. Assessment tools should ideally address multiple domains of health literacy, fit to the complex hospital context and have a short administration time, to enable routine assessment. This review aims to create an overview of tools for measuring (digital) health literacy in hospitals. A search in Scopus, PubMed, WoS and CINAHL, following PRISMA guidelines, generated 7252 hits; 251 studies were included in which 44 assessment tools were used. Most tools (57%) were self-reported and 27% reported an administration time of <5 min. Almost all tools addressed the domain 'understanding' (98%), followed by 'access' (52%), 'apply' (50%), 'appraise' (32%), 'numeracy' (18%), and 'digital' (18%). Only four tools were frequently used: the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults ((S)TOFHLA), the Brief Health Literacy Screener (BHLS), and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). While the NVS and BHLS have a low administration time, they cover only two domains. HLQ covers the most domains: access, understanding, appraise, and apply. None of these four most frequently used tools measured digital skills. This review can guide health professionals in choosing an instrument that is feasible in their daily practice, and measures the required domains.