Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id UAA15019; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:25:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:25:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <54.19a8cf4.25e884b0@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Dwyoho@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:2233] Re: It's a control issue X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: OR In a message dated 2 / 25 / 00 7:02:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, sandras@u.washington.edu writes: << Some of the problem is patient's low literacy-- we could get medical for a minute and call this hypoliteracy, a condition that leaves patients unable to understand instructions, labels, warnings and such. AND some of the problem is hyperliteracy, a condition of extremely developed literacy skills that leaves professionals unable to deliver instructions in a way that regular citizens can use them. Improving patients' literacy skills is one way to go, but that will not solve the whole problem. We must also look at ourselves and our communications. The sender is responsible for the message. >> What an interesting idea. Thanks for reminding us all that this is indeed a two way process. How often we cite the impact of a patient/client's problem without taking the responsibility for what professionals contribute to the situation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:58 EST