The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Teaching patients with low literacy skills
Abstract
It is estimated that 1 out of 5 American adults lacks the literacy skills needed to function effectively in todays society and as patients they present a challenge to health instruction. This book provides teaching strategies to aid in making self-help and self-management a reality for the patient with low literacy skills. The magnitude of the problem is explored and myths about illiteracy are exemplified. Two chapters deal with comprehension of written materials from theory to practical proven testing techniques including the cloze technique and the word-recognition test. Another chapter offers 2 formulas for testing the readability of written materials: the SMOG formula and the Fry index. Once a problem is identified a 4-step teaching strategy gives tips on teaching the low-literacy patient. For those pamphlets and booklets commonly given to patients suggestions for writing and rewriting to simplify the text are given along with examples of comprehension level. The use of audiotapes for teaching is explored in depth for those who learn better by listening. A chapter on the use of visuals stresses simplification to reduce the amount of text reading to emphasize instruction and to motivate and appropriate examples are given. Where written material audiotapes and visuals are drafted and produced according to the guidelines in the book the last chapter is devoted to pretesting to determine whether intended concepts are coming through. It defines the components of pretesting describes procedures discusses possible stages for production and provides examples of results. Although the book is aimed at providing teaching methods for the low-literate patient the suggestions also apply to the learning disabled.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature
DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x · Cited by 2,309
Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004 · Cited by 1,624
The prevalence of limited health literacy
Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Parker, R. M., Gazmararian, J. A., Nielsen-Bohlman, L. T., & Rudd, R. R. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40245.x · Cited by 1,381
Closing the Loop: Physician Communication With Diabetic Patients Who Have Low Health Literacy
Schillinger, D., Piette, J., Grumbach, K., Wang, F., Wilson, C., Daher, C., Leong-Grotz, K., Castro, C., & Bindman, A. B. (2003) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.163.1.83 · Cited by 1,162
Artinian, N. T., Fletcher, G. F., Mozaffarian, D., Kris-Etherton, P., Van Horn, L., Lichtenstein, A. H., Kumanyika, S., Kraus, W. E., Fleg, J. L., Redeker, N. S., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e3181e8edf1 · Cited by 919
Metadata
- Venue
- PsycEXTRA Dataset
- Published
- 2001
- OpenAlex
- W2035616688
- Cited by
- 1,229
- References
- 0
- Type
- dataset
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teaching patients with low literacy skills. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/e518822004-001
- The paper
- Teaching patients with low literacy skills. (2001). PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e518822004-001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.