A CHAT about health literacy – a qualitative feasibility study of the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool (CHAT) in a Danish municipal healthcare centre. Issue 4 (13th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jensen, Nanna Husted; Aaby, Anna; Ryom, Knud; Maindal, Helle Terkildsen
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of caring sciences. Volume 35:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 1250
• Page End: 1258
• Publication Date: 2020-12-13
• Subjects: health literacy -- organisational health literacy -- rehabilitation care -- RE‐AIM -- noncommunicable diseases -- healthcare service -- feasibility study; Nursing -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1111/scs.12943
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0283-9318

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Understanding individual health literacy needs is crucial when designing supportive and effective health care. However, tools assessing health literacy in practice are lacking. The Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool (CHAT) was recently developed, but its ability to assess health literacy remains unexplored. We aimed to investigate the implementation and adoption of CHAT, its ability to increase awareness of health literacy among healthcare providers, and if CHAT could assess health literacy needs in patients. Methods: We performed a qualitative feasibility study of CHAT among healthcare providers (nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) who provide rehabilitation services for patients with noncommunicable diseases in a municipal healthcare centre in Denmark. The study used the RE‐AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) to structure interview guide and analysis. We collected qualitative data from four small focus groups with healthcare providers (n = 11). The data were analysed using a deductive thematic three‐step method for organising and interpreting data. All informants provided written informed consent prior to data collection. Results: CHAT seems to be a feasible and efficient tool for assessing health literacy needs among individuals with different socio‐demographic characteristics and with different diagnoses. CHAT was easiest implemented and adopted by healthcare providers, who were already familiarly with the concept of health literacy. The informants emphasised that an introduction to CHAT and health literacy as concept was valuable for the adoption. Some of them felt frustrated that they did not have opportunity and options to meet the health literacy needs identified by CHAT. Conclusions: CHAT is a promising tool for assessing individual health literacy needs and increasing awareness of health literacy among healthcare providers. For successfully implementation of CHAT, we recommend developing a structured implementation programme, including an introduction to health literacy and an outline of the options for acting upon CHAT results.