-
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Nov 2014The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature.
PURPOSE
To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal.
STUDY DESIGN
Review.
METHODS
The steps of a successful systematic review include the following: identification of an unanswered answerable question; explicit definitions of the investigation's participant(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and outcome(s); utilization of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines and PROSPERO registration; thorough systematic data extraction; and appropriate grading of the evidence and strength of the recommendations.
RESULTS
An outline to understand and conduct a systematic review is provided, and the difference between meta-analyses and systematic reviews is described. The steps necessary to perform a systematic review are fully explained, including the study purpose, search methodology, data extraction, reporting of results, identification of bias, and reporting of the study's main findings.
CONCLUSION
Systematic reviews or meta-analyses critically appraise and formally synthesize the best existing evidence to provide a statement of conclusion that answers specific clinical questions. Readers and reviewers, however, must recognize that the quality and strength of recommendations in a review are only as strong as the quality of studies that it analyzes. Thus, great care must be used in the interpretation of bias and extrapolation of the review's findings to translation to clinical practice. Without advanced education on the topic, the reader may follow the steps discussed herein to perform a systematic review.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Medical Writing; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Orthopedics; Publishing; Review Literature as Topic; Sports Medicine
PubMed: 23925575
DOI: 10.1177/0363546513497567 -
JBI Evidence Synthesis Oct 2020The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR).
INTRODUCTION
Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis.
METHODS
Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020.
RESULTS
The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.
Topics: Knowledge; Policy; Publications; Research Design; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33038124
DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2022The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been applied in medicine: symbolic AI (eg, knowledge base and ontologies) and nonsymbolic AI (eg, machine learning and artificial neural networks). Consequently, AI has also been applied across most obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) domains, including general obstetrics, gynecology surgery, fetal ultrasound, and assisted reproductive medicine, among others.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review to establish the actual contributions of AI reported in OB/GYN discipline journals.
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for citations indexed with "artificial intelligence" and at least one of the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2020: "obstetrics"; "gynecology"; "reproductive techniques, assisted"; or "pregnancy." All publications in OB/GYN core disciplines journals were considered. The selection of journals was based on disciplines defined in Web of Science. The publications were excluded if no AI process was used in the study. Review, editorial, and commentary articles were also excluded. The study analysis comprised (1) classification of publications into OB/GYN domains, (2) description of AI methods, (3) description of AI algorithms, (4) description of data sets, (5) description of AI contributions, and (6) description of the validation of the AI process.
RESULTS
The PubMed search retrieved 579 citations and 66 publications met the selection criteria. All OB/GYN subdomains were covered: obstetrics (41%, 27/66), gynecology (3%, 2/66), assisted reproductive medicine (33%, 22/66), early pregnancy (2%, 1/66), and fetal medicine (21%, 14/66). Both machine learning methods (39/66) and knowledge base methods (25/66) were represented. Machine learning used imaging, numerical, and clinical data sets. Knowledge base methods used mostly omics data sets. The actual contributions of AI were method/algorithm development (53%, 35/66), hypothesis generation (42%, 28/66), or software development (3%, 2/66). Validation was performed on one data set (86%, 57/66) and no external validation was reported. We observed a general rising trend in publications related to AI in OB/GYN over the last two decades. Most of these publications (82%, 54/66) remain out of the scope of the usual OB/GYN journals.
CONCLUSIONS
In OB/GYN discipline journals, mostly preliminary work (eg, proof-of-concept algorithm or method) in AI applied to this discipline is reported and clinical validation remains an unmet prerequisite. Improvement driven by new AI research guidelines is expected. However, these guidelines are covering only a part of AI approaches (nonsymbolic) reported in this review; hence, updates need to be considered.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Obstetrics; Periodicals as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35297766
DOI: 10.2196/35465 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Aug 2017: Propensity score (PS) analysis is increasingly being used in observational studies, especially in some cancer studies where random assignment is not feasible. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
: Propensity score (PS) analysis is increasingly being used in observational studies, especially in some cancer studies where random assignment is not feasible. This systematic review evaluates the use and reporting quality of PS analysis in oncology studies.
METHODS
: We searched PubMed to identify the use of PS methods in cancer studies (CS) and cancer surgical studies (CSS) in major medical, cancer, and surgical journals over time and critically evaluated 33 CS published in top medical and cancer journals in 2014 and 2015 and 306 CSS published up to November 26, 2015, without earlier date limits. The quality of reporting in PS analysis was evaluated. It was also compared over time and among journals with differing impact factors. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
More than 50% of the publications with PS analysis from the past decade occurred within the past two years. Of the studies critically evaluated, a considerable proportion did not clearly provide the variables used to estimate PS (CS 12.1%, CSS 8.8%), incorrectly included non baseline variables (CS 3.4%, CSS 9.3%), neglected the comparison of baseline characteristics (CS 21.9%, CSS 15.6%), or did not report the matching algorithm utilized (CS 19.0%, CSS 36.1%). In CSS, the reporting of the matching algorithm improved in 2014 and 2015 ( P = .04), and the reporting of variables used to estimate PS was better in top surgery journals ( P = .008). However, there were no statistically significant differences for the inclusion of non baseline variables and reporting of comparability of baseline characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of PS in cancer studies has dramatically increased recently, but there is substantial room for improvement in the quality of reporting even in top journals. Herein we have proposed reporting guidelines for PS analyses that are broadly applicable to different areas of medical research that will allow better evaluation and comparison across studies applying this approach.
Topics: Algorithms; Biomedical Research; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Neoplasms; Periodicals as Topic; Propensity Score; Research Design; Research Report
PubMed: 28376195
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw323 -
JAMA Network Open Dec 2023Contemporary studies raise concerns regarding the implications of excessive screen time on the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the existing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Contemporary studies raise concerns regarding the implications of excessive screen time on the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the existing literature consists of mixed and unquantified findings.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyis of the association between screen time and ASD.
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted in the PubMed, PsycNET, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global databases for studies published up to May 1, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
The search was conducted independently by 2 authors. Included studies comprised empirical, peer-reviewed articles or dissertations published in English with statistics from which relevant effect sizes could be calculated. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Two authors independently coded all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and resolved all discrepancies by consensus. Effect sizes were transformed into log odds ratios (ORs) and analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression. Study quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Publication bias was tested via the Egger z test for funnel plot asymmetry. Data analysis was performed in June 2023.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The 2 main variables of interest in this study were screen time and ASD. Screen time was defined as hours of screen use per day or per week, and ASD was defined as an ASD clinical diagnosis (yes or no) or ASD symptoms. The meta-regression considered screen type (ie, general use of screens, television, video games, computers, smartphones, and social media), age group (children vs adults or heterogenous age groups), and type of ASD measure (clinical diagnosis vs ASD symptoms).
RESULTS
Of the 4682 records identified, 46 studies with a total of 562 131 participants met the inclusion criteria. The studies were observational (5 were longitudinal and 41 were cross-sectional) and included 66 relevant effect sizes. The meta-analysis resulted in a positive summary effect size (log OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.74]). A trim-and-fill correction for a significant publication bias (Egger z = 2.15; P = .03) resulted in a substantially decreased and nonsignificant effect size (log OR, 0.22 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.44]). The meta-regression results suggested that the positive summary effect size was only significant in studies targeting general screen use (β [SE] = 0.73 [0.34]; t58 = 2.10; P = .03). This effect size was most dominant in studies of children (log OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.29]). Interestingly, a negative summary effect size was observed in studies investigating associations between social media and ASD (log OR, -1.24 [95% CI, -1.51 to -0.96]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the proclaimed association between screen use and ASD is not sufficiently supported in the existing literature. Although excessive screen use may pose developmental risks, the mixed findings, the small effect sizes (especially when considering the observed publication bias), and the correlational nature of the available research require further scientific investigation. These findings also do not rule out the complementary hypothesis that children with ASD may prioritize screen activities to avoid social challenges.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Screen Time; Publication Bias
PubMed: 38064216
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46775 -
Medical Education Jun 2021Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.
METHOD
The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.
RESULTS
One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.
CONCLUSIONS
Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.
Topics: Education, Medical; Humans; Knowledge; Publications
PubMed: 33300124
DOI: 10.1111/medu.14431 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Capsaicin; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Osteoarthritis; Piroxicam; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28497473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008609.pub2 -
PloS One 2020WATSU (portmanteau word: water and shiatsu) is a form of passive hydrotherapy in chest-deep thermoneutral water (35°C = 95°F = 308.15 K). It combines elements of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
WATSU (portmanteau word: water and shiatsu) is a form of passive hydrotherapy in chest-deep thermoneutral water (35°C = 95°F = 308.15 K). It combines elements of myofascial stretching, joint mobilization, massage, and shiatsu and is reported to be used to address physical and mental issues. The objective of this systematic review (PROSPERO Registration No. CRD42016029347) and the meta-analyses was to assess the applications, indications, and the effects of WATSU to form a basis for further studies.
METHODS
A search for "WATSU OR watershiatsu OR (water AND shiatsu)" was conducted without any restrictions in 32 databases. Peer reviewed original articles addressing WATSU as a stand-alone hydrotherapy were assessed for risk of bias. Quantitative data of effects on pain, physical function, and mental issues were processed in random model meta-analyses with subgroup analyses by study design. Effect sizes were expressed as Hedges's g (± 95% confidence intervals).
RESULTS
Of 1,906 unique citations, 27 articles regardless of study design were assessed for risk of bias. WATSU has been applied to individuals of all ages. Indications covered acute (e.g. pregnancy related low back pain) and chronic conditions (e.g. cerebral palsy) with beneficial effects of WATSU regarding e.g. relaxation or sleep quality. Meta-analyses suggest beneficial effect sizes of WATSU on pain (overall Hedges's g = -0.71, 95% CI = -0.91 to -0.51), physical function (overall Hedges's g = -0.76, 95% CI = -1.08 to -0.44), and mental issues (overall Hedges's g = -0.68, 95% CI = -1.02 to -0.35).
CONCLUSION
Various applications, indications and beneficial effects of WATSU were identified. The grade of this evidence is estimated to be low to moderate at the best. To strengthen the findings of this study, high-quality RCTs are needed.
Topics: Acupressure; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Models, Theoretical; Pain Management; Publication Bias; Risk
PubMed: 32168328
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229705 -
Journal of Medicine and Life 2021Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) encompass a wide array of ailments affecting the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), muscles of mastication, and the allied...
Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) encompass a wide array of ailments affecting the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), muscles of mastication, and the allied structural framework. Myofascial pain, internal derangement of the joint, and degenerative joint diseases constitute the majority of TMDs. TMDs usually have a multifactorial etiology, and treatment modalities range from conservative therapies to surgical interventions. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has evolved as an efficient non-invasive therapeutic modality in TMDs. Previously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown variable results regarding the efficiency of LLLT in TMJ disorder patients. Hence, this systematic review was carried out as an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of LLLT in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorder patients.
Topics: Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Publication Bias; Risk; Software; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 34104237
DOI: 10.25122/jml-2020-0169 -
Family Medicine and Community Health May 2020The objective of this review was to clarify what health literacy represents. A systematic review with qualitative syntheses was performed (CRD42017065149). Studies...
The objective of this review was to clarify what health literacy represents. A systematic review with qualitative syntheses was performed (CRD42017065149). Studies concerning health literacy in all settings were included. Studies before 15 March 2017 were identified from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycARTICLES and the Cochrane Library. The included literature either had defined the concept of health literacy or made a detailed explanation of health literacy. A total of 34 original studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 involved in previous systematic reviews and 21 new studies. Health literacy was commonly conceptualised as a set of knowledge, a set of skills or a hierarchy of functions (functional-interactive-critical). The construct of health literacy covers three broad elements: (1) knowledge of health, healthcare and health systems; (2) processing and using information in various formats in relation to health and healthcare; and (3) ability to maintain health through self-management and working in partnerships with health providers. Health literacy is defined as the ability of an individual to obtain and translate knowledge and information in order to maintain and improve health in a way that is appropriate to the individual and system contexts. This definition highlights the diversity of needs from different individuals and the importance of interactions between individual consumers, healthcare providers and healthcare systems.
Topics: Access to Information; Cooperative Behavior; Health Literacy; Self Efficacy; Self-Management
PubMed: 32414834
DOI: 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351