The aim of this study was to assess health literacy (word recognition and comprehension) in patients at a rural rheumatology practice and to compare this to health literacy levels in patients from an urban rheumatology practice.Inclusion criteria for this cross-sectional study were as follows: ≥18-year-old patients at a rural rheumatology practice (Mid-North Coast Arthritis Clinic, Coffs Harbour, Australia) and an urban Sydney rheumatology practice (Combined Rheumatology Practice, Kogarah, Australia). Exclusion criteria were as follows: ill-health precluding participation; poor vision/hearing, non-English primary language. Word recognition was assessed using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM). Comprehension was assessed using the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA). Practical comprehension and numeracy were assessed by asking patients to follow prescribing instructions for 5 common rheumatology medications.At the rural practice (Mid-North Coast Arthritis Clinic), 124/160 patients agreed to participate (F:M 83:41, mean age 60.3 ± 12.2) whereas the corresponding number at the urban practice (Combined Rheumatology Practice) was 99/119 (F:M 69:30, mean age 60.7 ± 17.5). Urban patients were more likely to be born overseas, speak another language at home, and be employed. There was no difference in REALM or TOFHLA scores between the 2 sites, and so data were pooled. REALM scores indicated 15% (33/223) of patients had a reading level ≤Grade 8 whereas 8% (18/223) had marginal or inadequate functional health literacy as assessed by the TOFHLA. Dosing instructions for ibuprofen and methotrexate were incorrectly understood by 32% (72/223) and 21% (46/223) of patients, respectively.Up to 15% of rural and urban patients had low health literacy and <1/3 of patients incorrectly followed dosing instructions for common rheumatology drugs.There was no significant difference in word recognition, functional health literacy, and numeracy between rural and urban rheumatology patients.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,397,839
of 33,928,890 outputs
Outputs from Medicine (Wolters Kluwer)
#1,229
of 19,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,196
of 423,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine (Wolters Kluwer)
#16
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,928,890 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
