Measuring cancer caregiver health literacy: Validation of the Health Literacy of Caregivers Scale-Cancer (HLCS-C) in an Australian population

Health literacy, eHealth literacy and their association with burden, distress, and self-efficacy among cancer caregivers

Purpose

Health literacy skills are vital for cancer caregivers in helping cancer survivors to navigate their diagnosis, treatment, and recovery but little is known. This study explored health literacy and eHealth literacy among cancer caregivers and the relationship between health literacy/eHealth literacy and potential associated factors.

Methods

Informal caregivers who had cared for an individual with cancer completed a survey which collected demographic data and measured caregiver health literacy, eHealth literacy, self-efficacy, burden, and distress.

Results

Seven percent of caregivers had inadequate health literacy. Caregivers scored lowest on health literacy domains related to caregiver social support, information seeking and understanding care recipient preferences. eHealth literacy was associated with self-efficacy and burden while, different health literacy domains were associated with burden ('Understanding care recipient needs and preferences'), self-efficacy ('Cancer-related communication with the care recipient' and 'Understanding care recipients needs and preferences') and distress ('Proactivity and determination to seek information', 'Understanding care recipient needs and preferences', 'Understanding the healthcare system').

Conclusion

Findings highlight key areas of need regarding cancer caregiver health literacy which future research can target. Given the observed relationship between aspects of health literacy and burden, distress and self-efficacy future work could be carried out on how to alleviate high levels of burden and distress and how to enhance self-efficacy among cancer caregivers by addressing health literacy skills.

Implications for cancer survivors

Findings from this study will inform the development of health literacy interventions to support caregivers to build their health literacy skills and enable this group to better support cancer survivors as a result.

Health literacy interventions for informal caregivers: systematic review

AIM

The aim of the systematic review was to identify conceptual models and interventions designed to improve health literacy in caregivers of adults with a chronic disease/disability.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for relevant literature. Articles were included if they focused on adults who provided informal care to someone aged 18+ with a chronic disease/disability. Quantitative studies were included if they reported an intervention designed to improve caregiver health literacy (CHL) and assessed outcomes using a validated measure of health literacy. Qualitative and mixed method studies were included if they described a conceptual model or framework of CHL or developed/assessed the feasibility of an intervention. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included. Five studies used pre-post design to assess outcomes of an intervention; four described intervention development and/or pilot testing; two described conceptual models. Two of five studies reported pre-post intervention improvements in CHL; one reported an improvement in one of nine health literacy domains; two reported no improvements following intervention. Interventions predominantly aimed to improve: caregiver understanding of the disease, treatment and potential outcomes, day-to-day care, self-care and health provider engagement. Few interventions targeted broader interpersonal and health service factors identified as influencing CHL.

DISCUSSION

Evidence on the development and assessment of comprehensive CHL interventions is scarce. Recommendations include the development of interventions that are guided by a CHL framework to ensure they address individual, interpersonal and health service/provider factors that influence CHL.

Assessing the Comprehensive Training Needs of Informal Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study

Introduction: The increasing demand for cancer services is projected to overwhelm the cancer care system, leading to a potential shortfall in human resource capacity. Informal caregivers (unpaid family/friend caregivers of cancer patients) provide a significant amount of care to patients and the cancer care system could not cope without them. The aim of this study was to analyze the needs of informal caregivers (CGs) through interviews with cancer patients and CGs, and to assess the content and utility of a comprehensive caregiver training course. Methods: Cancer patients and CGs were recruited from an academic cancer centre to elicit their thoughts and perceptions of cancer CG education needs through a qualitative, phenomenological design using semi-structured interviews and a curriculum review activity. Results: Six patients and seven CGs were interviewed. Patients averaged 53.8 years of age and CGs averaged 53.1 years. Caregiver participants reported that they were unprepared for their caregiving role. Depending on the severity of the disease, CGs reported significant emotional strain. Most participants wanted more practical information, and all expressed the desire for greater social support for CGs. While there were differences in terms of desired modality (e.g., online, in-person), support for greater CG education was strong. Discussion: CGs experience a significant learning curve and receive little to no direct training or education to help them acquire the knowledge and skills they need to support a cancer patient. This is especially challenging for new CGs, for whom emotional and informational needs are particularly acute. Participants shared a great deal of endorsement for a comprehensive training course for new CGs. Given the multiple demands on their time, some participants suggested that consideration be made to establish synchronous classes. Participants held that having the course take place (online or in-person) at a specific time, on a specific date could help CGs prioritize their learning. Participants also endorsed the idea of “required” learning because even though CGs may recognize that a course could be beneficial, some may lack the motivation to participate unless it was “prescribed” to them by a healthcare provider.

Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021

BACKGROUND

It has been about 30 years since the first health literacy instrument was developed. This study aimed to review all existing instruments to summarize the current knowledge on the development of existing measurement instruments and their possible translation and validation in other languages different from the original languages.

METHODS

The review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar on all published papers on health literacy instrument development and psychometric properties in English biomedical journals from 1993 to the end of 2021.

RESULTS

The findings were summarized and synthesized on several headings, including general instruments, condition specific health literacy instruments (disease & content), population- specific instruments, and electronic health. Overall, 4848 citations were retrieved. After removing duplicates (n = 2336) and non-related papers (n = 2175), 361 studies (162 papers introducing an instrument and 199 papers reporting translation and psychometric properties of an original instrument) were selected for the final review. The original instruments included 39 general health literacy instruments, 90 condition specific (disease or content) health literacy instruments, 22 population- specific instruments, and 11 electronic health literacy instruments. Almost all papers reported reliability and validity, and the findings indicated that most existing health literacy instruments benefit from some relatively good psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted that there were more than enough instruments for measuring health literacy. In addition, we found that a number of instruments did not report psychometric properties sufficiently. However, evidence suggest that well developed instruments and those reported adequate measures of validation could be helpful if appropriately selected based on objectives of a given study. Perhaps an authorized institution such as World Health Organization should take responsibility and provide a clear guideline for measuring health literacy as appropriate.

eTRIO trial: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial of online education modules to facilitate effective family caregiver involvement in oncology

OBJECTIVE

Informal family caregivers play a crucial role in cancer care. Effective caregiver involvement in cancer care can improve both patient and caregiver outcomes. Despite this, interventions improving the caregiver involvement are sparse. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial evaluating the combined effectiveness of novel online caregiver communication education modules for: (1) oncology clinicians (eTRIO) and (2) patients with cancer and caregivers (eTRIO-pc).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Thirty medical/radiation/surgical oncology or haematology doctors and nurses will be randomly allocated to either intervention (eTRIO) or control (an Australian State Government Health website on caregivers) education conditions. Following completion of education, each clinician will recruit nine patient-caregiver pairs, who will be allocated to the same condition as their recruiting clinician. Eligibility includes any new adult patient diagnosed with any type/stage cancer attending consultations with a caregiver. Approximately 270 patient-caregiver pairs will be recruited. The primary outcome is caregiver self-efficacy in triadic (clinician-patient-caregiver) communication. Patient and clinician self-efficacy in triadic communication are secondary outcomes. Additional secondary outcomes for clinicians include preferences for caregiver involvement, perceived module usability/acceptability, analysis of module use, satisfaction with the module, knowledge of strategies and feedback interviews. Secondary outcomes for caregivers and patients include preferences for caregiver involvement, satisfaction with clinician communication, distress, quality of life, healthcare expenditure, perceived module usability/acceptability and analysis of module use. A subset of patients and caregivers will complete feedback interviews. Secondary outcomes for caregivers include preparedness for caregiving, patient-caregiver communication and caring experience. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, and 1 week, 12 weeks and 26 weeks post-intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been received by the Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (REGIS project ID number: 2019/PID09787), with site-specific approval from each recruitment site. Protocol V.7 (dated 1 September 2020) is currently approved and reported in this manuscript. Findings will be disseminated via presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Engagement with clinicians, media, government, consumers and peak cancer groups will facilitate widespread dissemination and long-term availability of the educational modules.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001507178.

Measuring consumer access, appraisal and application of services and information for dementia (CAAASI-Dem): a key component of dementia literacy

BACKGROUND

The ability to locate, navigate and use dementia services and information, either for oneself or in providing care for others, is an essential component of dementia literacy. Despite dementia literacy being understood to be inadequate in many settings, no validated instrument exists to measure these elements. Here we describe the development and preliminary validation of the Consumer Access, Appraisal and Application of Services and Information for Dementia (CAAASI-Dem) tool.

METHODS

Items were adapted from existing health literacy tools and guided by discussion posts in the Understanding Dementia Massive Open Online Course (UDMOOC). Following expert review and respondent debriefing, a modified CAAASI-Dem was administered to UDMOOC participants online. On the basis of descriptive statistics, inter-item and item total correlations and qualitative feedback, this was further refined and administered online to a second cohort of UDMOOC participants. Exploratory factor analysis identified underlying factor structure. Items were retained if they had significant factor loadings on one factor only. Each factor required at least three items with significant factor loadings. Internal consistency of factors in the final model was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficients.

RESULTS

From a pool of 70 initial items with either a 5-point Likert scale (Not at all confident - Extremely confident; or Strongly agree - Strongly disagree) or a binary scale (Yes - No), 65 items were retained in CAAASI-Dem-V1. Statistical and qualitative analysis of 1412 responses led to a further 34 items being removed and 11 revised to improve clarity. The 31 item CAAASI-Dem-V2 tool was subsequently administered to 3146 participants, one item was removed due to redundancy and EFA resulted in the removal of an additional 4 items and determination of a five factor structure: Evaluation and engagement; Readiness; Social supports; Specific dementia services; and Practical aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

The five factors and 26 constituent items in CAAASI-Dem align with functional, critical, and communicative aspects of dementia health literacy from the perspective of the carer. As a screening tool for people living with dementia and their carers, CAAASI-Dem potentially provides a means to determine support needs and may be a key component of the dementia literacy assessment toolbox.

Development of a communication and health literacy curriculum: Optimizing the informal cancer caregiver role

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop learning objectives and identify content for a core communication and health literacy curriculum designed to optimize the role of informal cancer caregivers (family or friends).

METHODS

A three-step process was conducted: (a) two-round online Delphi method process with experts (n = 9) in cancer caregiving to gain consensus on curriculum learning objectives; (b) online survey of oncology providers (n = 32) to generate potential content and rate importance of domains; and (c) focus group of cancer caregivers (n = 6) to explore caregiving experiences and curriculum content topics.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 learning objectives and 53 topics were identified for a cancer caregiver communication and health literacy curriculum. Feedback from cancer caregivers did not produce any new topics yet confirmed topics generated by experts and providers. The curriculum identified as essential has been organized under the following headings: finding cancer information; assessing and integrating information; working with health care providers; getting help; talking with the care recipient; recognizing the care recipient's needs; and planning for caregiver self-care.

CONCLUSIONS

This theoretically grounded study systematically identified seven curriculum topic areas and content unique to caregivers and included input from key stakeholders. The next step is to develop the program for dissemination and to test its impact on caregiver and patient outcomes.

Variation in health literacy among family caregiver communication types

OBJECTIVE

Previously, four caregiver types have been identified as a result of communication patterns between patient and caregiver, revealing unique caregiver information needs and preferences. The purpose of this study was to explore variation in health literacy among the four family caregiver communication types: manager, partner, carrier, and lone caregivers.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 115 cancer caregivers. Participants completed the Family Caregiver Communication Tool and the Health Literacy of Caregivers Scale-Cancer.

RESULTS

A significant difference in health literacy domains was found between caregiver types for cancer-related communication with the care recipient (P = .038) and understanding of the health care system (P = .003). Of the health literacy domains, mean scores were highest on understanding the health care system for both lone and carrier caregivers. Manager and partner caregivers were highest on the social support domain. The self-care domain was lowest for the carrier, lone, and manager caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a variation across health literacy domains among caregiver communication types, further validating the Family Caregiver Communication Typology. Findings showed a need for educational programs for cancer caregivers to strengthen their health literacy skills. As cancer caregivers have a prominent role in the delivery and quality of cancer care, it is pivotal for health care centers to provide caregiver communication training and support.