Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h8MJwNV05190; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <015801c38143$00a1c6e0$fa8c2344@montbl01.nm.comcast.net> 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: "Audrey Riffenburgh" <ar@plainlanguageworks.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4139] Re: "Health literacy" out "Clear Health Communication" in X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6063 Lines: 143 Greetings, Ian and other "listers": I read your post about the term "clear health communication" with interest. I attended the Pfizer Health Literacy conference in DC last week, too, and, personally, I was glad to see the new term in use. My colleagues in the Clear Language Group and I have been working with Pfizer on its health literacy initiative since its inception 6 or 7 years ago. We have talked quite a bit with Pfizer about our concerns that the focus on people with low literacy skills was too narrow. I am glad to see the new term coming into wider use. I came into my health literacy work from the adult literacy field (I've worked at the local, state and national level). I am VERY aware of the huge challenges these people face and I don't want to dilute the attention given to them. At the same time, I felt that framing the problem as mainly a "literacy" issue rather than a lack of plain language usage by health care professionals was problematic. I always felt that focusing on people with limited overall literacy skills put the responsibility for lack of communication at their feet. It laid too much blame on them, especially when we talked about how much low HEALTH literacy costs the medical system. Instead we need to put more of the responsibility for communication on to health care providers. I also think that if we are talking to health care providers about 20% of US adults, it's harder to get their attention. They can more easily dismiss the information by saying, "I don't have any of those people in my practice." Whereas framing the issue in a larger context can help those providers understand the serious scope of the problem. I think we must continue to speak out about the challenges people with low overall literacy face, the impact of low literacy skills on their health, etc. I don't believe they will get lost in the transition. I think widening the focus may even help them more than the current view. I like reframing the issue in the new way because it helps health care providers and people who develop print materials understand the responsibility which is rightly theirs in the communication process. It' s not just about people who struggle to read. It's about how difficult it is for ALL of us to understand and use health information when it's presented in such a way that the general public can't make sense of it. I look forward to hearing others' perspectives on this issue. Audrey Riffenburgh, M.A. President, Riffenburgh & Associates P.O. Box 6670, Albuquerque, NM 87197-6670 Phone: (505) 345-1107 Fax: (505) 345-1104 E-mail: ar@plainlanguageworks.com Specialists in Plain Language & Health Literacy since 1994 ============================================= Principal & Founding Member, The Clear Language Group www.clearlanguagegroup.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Bennett" <ibennett@mail.med.upenn.edu> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:04 AM Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4134] "Health literacy" out "Clear Health Communication" in > Hello Everyone, > > I was lucky enough to be able to participate in this year's Pfizer Health > Literacy Initiative annual meeting in Washington and had a few thoughts > that I thought might fit well in the discussion here. There were many > interesting presentations and discussions that covered the progress, > limitations, and possible future for work in health literacy. I was really > happy to hear people talk about the formation of collaborations between the > worlds of adult education and health for basic research and intervention > development/evaluation. > > One interesting point that I wanted to discuss further to help my own > thoughts is the change of the name of the Pfizer program from "Health > Literacy" to "Clear Health Communication." There has always been a lot of > confusion about what exactly anyone meant when they used the phrase health > literacy (one person might be thinking mostly literacy and another > something about health system navigation skills). This name certainly > clarifies the focus but I am interested in what it might mean for the study > of literacy and health. > > Clearly low literacy skill will continue to be a part in how clear health > communication can happen and maybe this is what many people thinking about > health literacy where really talking about all along. But, now that the > word literacy isn't in the title any longer does this pull the focus a bit > away from the obstacles faced by those who cannot read? If so, let's not > forget that most of the work out there on poor health status and outcomes > is related to literacy (or more precisely reading) not the more global > concept of health literacy. We also are always referring to the NALS which > measured literacy not health literacy. What I mean to say is that there > isn't much that I am aware of that shows that someone with high reading > scores but would score low in the theoretical domains of health literacy, > will have more illness, spend more time in the hospital, or die sooner, > than someone with good reading skill and good health literacy. It may be > true but there is no evidence of it. > > There are some interesting areas in health communication that are suddenly > opened up by the use of the "clear health communication" phrase like the > data that there are health disparities (that is differences in quality of > care and health outcomes that follow the lines of race) in the kinds of > options and care that is offered to patients as well as actual health > outcomes (Cooper-Patrick, Roter, and others). I have not heard those > studies mentioned previously at the Pfizer conference but maybe it is time > to bring it in. > > To end this stream of consciousness I guess there are new opportunities but > also some new challenges to make sure that the literacy part is not lost as > we move forward as a group. > > Ian M. Bennett, M.D., Ph.D. > Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine > University of Pennsylvania > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:12 EST