Discussion: Educational Plan Presentation

24/7 Homework Help

Stuck on a homework question? Our verified tutors can answer all questions, from basic math to advanced rocket science!

Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationScenario:As a nurse at Memorial Hospital, a large city hospital, you provide care to diverse patients. As you work the nursing units at the hospital, you engage with the electronic health records of hundreds of patients each day as a way of accessing, recording, and developing guidelines for safe and quality patient care. Today, you have accessed the patient portal to help you develop and design educational materials for your patient. As you review the pertinent information in the patient portal, you begin considering how you will communicate these educational materials to your patient. After gathering your thoughts and obtaining the necessary history and medical needs of your patient, you are ready to create and deliver this educational plan to your patient. Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationEducational PlanDesign and create an educational plan (brochure or pamphlet) that addresses the following for your selected patient:Include relevant health information necessary to educate your patient on their healthcare needs.a. Describe and define the health diagnoses, treatments, and at least one medication listed in the patient portal.b. Explain relevant statistics and individual health vital signs related to the patient’s medical history.Adhere to health literacy guidelines for your individual patient.Address each of the six areas from the “Checklist for Easy-to-Understand Print Materials.”Make your educational plan visually appealing and relevant to your individual patient.Support the development of your educational plan by consulting and referencing 3 to 5 reputable sources. Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationEnsure that your educational plan is 1 to 2 pages in length; include a separate page for you reference list.Response applies exemplary health literacy strategies to the patient’s educational plan. Response excels in the application of the six elements of health literacy to support patient ease of understanding and to enhance the educational plan.Response is visually appealing and relevant to the individual patient. ninatatae_patient.jpgwhat_is_the_meaning_of_health_literacy.pdfsimply_put_guide_for_creating_easy_to_understand_materials.pdfReview What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis Chenxi Liu,1 Dan Wang,1 Chaojie Liu ‍ ‍ ,2 Junnan Jiang,1 Xuemei Wang,1 Haihong Chen,1 Xin Ju,1 Xinping Zhang1 To cite: Liu C, Wang D, Liu C, et al. What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Fam Med Com Health 2020;8:e000351. doi:10.1136/ fmch-2020-000351 ►► Additional material is published online only. To view please visit the journal online (http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​fmch-​2020-​000351). © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-­use permitted under CC BY-­NC. No commercial re-­use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 1 School of Medicine and Health Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China 2 Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Correspondence to Professor Xinping Zhang;​xpzhang602@​hust.e​ du.​cn Abstract 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. Introduction Health literacy, as a term first proposed in the 1970s,1 generally concerns whether an individual is competent with the complex demands of promoting and maintaining health in the modern society.2 Over the past two decades, increasing attention has been attached to the concept due to its significant benefits to individual and public health and the sustainability of healthcare systems.3–8 It is considered particularly important when non-­communicable diseases (NCDs) prevail and their corresponding costs are steadily rising,9 highlighting the need for people to take more responsibility in managing their own health with more effective use of health services.10 Inadequate health literacy is associated with difficulties in comprehension of health information, limited knowledge of diseases and lower medication adherence, which contribute to poor health, high risk of mortality, insufficient and ineffective use of healthcare, increased costs, and health disparities.Discussion: Educational Plan Presentation4 6 11 The existing evidence seems to suggest health literacy as one of the most promising and cost-­effective approaches to overcome the NCD challenges.12 13 Many countries have included health literacy as a key priority in their policies and practices, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, the European Union and China.14 The WHO recommends health literacy as an instrument for achieving several key targets listed in the Sustainable Development Goals.15 Despite the realisation of the importance of health literacy to human health and extensive studies into this area over the past few decades, there is still a lack of consensus on ‘what the concept actually represents’.16 Such an essential research question has often been overlooked.13 The concept of health literacy seems to be very flexible, which allows anyone to identify nearly whatever one wants as health literacy. Over 250 different definitions exist in the academic literature.17 The unclear and inconsistent interpretations of health literacy are projected to limit the development of valid and reliable measurements, the accurate evaluation and comparisons of health literacy initiatives, and the synthesis of evidence to support strategies for improving health literacy.13 14 16–18 Furthermore, the confusion of the concept is likely to produce disjointed and even contradictory findings, jeopardising the development and implementation of trustworthy and effective health literacy-­related interventions and policies.13 14 16 This study aimed to clarify ‘what health literacy represents’ through a systematic Liu C, et al. Fam Med Com Health 2020;8:e000351. doi:10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 1 Fam Med Com Health: first published as 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 on 14 May 2020. Downloaded from http://fmch.bmj.com/ on December 31, 2020 at Walden University. Protected by copyright. Open access review and qualitative synthesis of existing studies across different contexts in relation to this complex concept. Methods Search strategy and selection criteria A systematic review following a registered protocol (no: CRD42017065149) was conducted, which followed the ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative research) guidelines. The search strategy was adapted based on a previous systematic review,5 using a combination of keywords such as ‘health literacy’, ‘definition’, ‘concept’ and so on. We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycARTICLES and the Cochrane Library and restricted our search to articles published from 1 January 2010 to 15 March 2017 (date of last search) simply because the most recent systematic review analysed literature published before 2010 (details of the search protocol in online supplementary table S3). Title, abstract and full texts of retrieved records were examined by two authors against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, independently. Discrepancies, if occurred, were resolved through consultations with the third author. The included literature either had an explicit objective to define the concept of health literacy or made an implicit contribution to people’s understanding of health literacy: for example, studies that explored the constructs of health literacy. Studies with an interpretive nature using an existing conceptual framework without making further contributions to the conceptualisation of health literacy, without any theoretical presentation of the concept of health literacy and those that were not written in the English language were excluded. Additional studies were identified at this stage through scrutinising references of the included literature. These included studies published before 2010 but had been omitted in the two previous systematic reviews.5 19 Data analysis A data collection chart (online supplementary table S4) was developed and guided the extraction of the bibliographic information and the results of the conceptualisation of health literacy in the included studies.Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationThe bibliographic information covered study objectives and methods, describing why and where the study was undertaken, who participated in the study, and how data were collected and analysed. The results of the conceptualisation of health literacy focused on the underlying constructs and meaning of health literacy.5 19 Two of the authors extracted data independently. The two sets of chart were crosschecked and eventually amalgamated through group discussions. A data-­driven thematic analysis was adopted using a semigrammatical coding approach.20 According to Braun and Clarke,21 this involved four steps: data familiarisation, initial coding, themes searching, and themes reviewing and naming. 2 In the first step, included studies were repeatedly read, and all statements relevant to the research question were identified using the data collection chart, forming a data pool for qualitative syntheses. A total of 570 statements were recorded. In the second step, each statement was divided into several parts using a semigrammatical coding approach, which included cores, actions, objects, aims and others (such as context). For example, Freedman et al22 interpreted health literacy as ‘the skills necessary to obtain, process, evaluate, and act upon information needed to make public health decisions that benefit the community’. This statement was coded as ‘necessary skills’ (cores), ‘to obtain, process, evaluate and act upon’ (actions), ‘needed information’ (objects), and ‘to make public health decisions that benefit the community’ (aims). The third step extracted shared common themes. The clustering procedure was mainly based on the codes (n=74) labelled as ‘cores’, but also considered other codes (actions, objects, aims and others) embodied in each statement. Finally, the extracted themes were reviewed against the initial coding and data pool and renamed if necessary. This was to ensure that the data pool was well represented and the relationships between codes and themes were not distorted. Two reviewers conducted steps 1 and 2 independently, and their results were crosschecked and reconciled through negotiations. Steps 3 and 4 were conducted in groups. Consensus was achieved through constant negotiations and discussions within the research team. Results Characteristics of included studies A total of 6029 records were retrieved from the databases and 2368 duplications were removed. After screening of titles and abstracts, 589 studies were kept for full-­text reviewing. The full-­ text reviews identified 569 studies that failed to meet our inclusion criteria: 394 due to a lack of conceptualisation; 139 due to their interpretive nature for existing conceptual frameworks; 3 due to a lack of interpretations of the concept; and 33 due to language barriers (non-­English publications). We then added the 13 studies included in the two previous systematic reviews.5 19 One more study was identified from references screening. This resulted in a final sample size of 34 for our systematic review (figure 1). About two-­ thirds of the included studies explored the concept of health literacy in general populations,3–5 19 20 22–37 while the others focused on children and adolescents,38–42 elderly people,43 patients with chronic diseases,44–47 gay men,48 cancer caregivers,49 and people with limited English proficiency.50 Most studies adopted a broad and general concept of health literacy without restricting to a specific health topic. But eight studies placed the concept of health literacy under a particular context, such as public health,22 sexual health,48 tobacco control,41 complementary medicine,37 verbal exchange of Liu C, et al. Fam Med Com Health 2020;8:e000351. doi:10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 Fam Med Com Health: first published as 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 on 14 May 2020. Downloaded from http://fmch.bmj.com/ on December 31, 2020 at Walden University. Protected by copyright. Open access Figure 1 ENTREQ flow diagram of systematic review. information,35 functional health47 and critical thinking34 36 (online supplementary table S1).Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationOf the 34 included studies, 19 involved original data4 5 19 20 23 24 26 28 32 35–37 39 41–44 48 49 and 15 were theoretical proposals.3 22 25 27 29–31 33 34 38 40 45–47 50 The former performed concept analyses,28 32 36 43 concept mapping,23 49 thematic analyses,5 19 24 35 41 42 48 grounded theory analyses,26 35 39 semigrammatical analyses20 or framework analyses44 on qualitative data collected from documents, interviews or focus groups. The latter were largely views from experts, with limited information about how the conceptualisation was done. Those theoretical studies were usually published before 2013 during the early stage of arguments about the concept of health literacy. Since then, the literature has been dominated by empirical studies (online supplementary table S1). What is health literacy? Health literacy was commonly conceptualised as a set of knowledge, a set of skills or a hierarchy of functions (functional-­interactive-­critical). Four studies highlighted knowledge as the core in the concept of health literacy. Schulz and Nakamoto25 identified health literacy as a set of basic literacy, declarative Liu C, et al. Fam Med Com Health 2020;8:e000351. doi:10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 knowledge, procedural knowledge and judgement skills. Declarative knowledge represents people’s understanding of factual information about health, while procedural knowledge represents people’s understanding of rules that guide people’s reasoned choices and actions. In combination, they enable people to acquire and use information in various contexts and govern the competence of different tasks.25 Similarly, Paakkari and Paakkari38 defined health literacy as a set of theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge and critical thinking, corresponding to declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and judgement skills proposed by Schulz and Nakamoto.25 In addition, Paakkari and Paakkari38 argued that self-­ awareness and citizenship also form a part of health literacy because they represent one’s ability to assess oneself in an informed way and to take responsibility to improve health beyond a personal perspective. Rowlands et al24 found that health literacy is reflected in people’s ability to acquire, understand and evaluate knowledge for health. Shreffler-­Grant et al37 specified the knowledge regarding the dosage, effect, safety and availability of medicines as health literacy associated with complementary medicines (online supplementary table S1). 3 Fam Med Com Health: first published as 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351 on 14 May 2020. Downloaded from http://fmch.bmj.com/ on December 31, 2020 at Walden University. Protected by copyright. Open access Arguably, the Institute of Medicine (IoM) presented one of the most influential models of health literacy. The IoM model contains four underlying constructs: cultural and conceptual knowledge, print health literacy (writing and reading skills), oral health literacy (listening and speaking), and numeracy.4 It has a strong focus on the required skills for people to obtain, process and apply information for the purpose of medical care. This model has attracted support from many researchers. For example, Baker30 refined the contents of health-­ related print literacy and oral literacy in general populations. Harrington and Valerio35 refined details of verbal exchange of health information, similar to the concept of oral health literacy. Yip50 argued that speaking, reading, writing, listening and numeracy are particularly important for people with limited English proficiency. Squiers et al19 added negotiation skills into oral health literacy and relabelled it as communication skills. Navigation skills were also proposed by Squiers et al19 as an important element in the eHealth context. Sørensen et al summarised the literature and presented skills to access, understand, appraise and apply information and knowledge as four core skills of health literacy, which can cover all related works that people need to carry on when dealing with health information to improve and maintain health.5 Mancuso28 and Oldfield and Dreher43 emphasised the importance of comprehension skills. Discussion: Educational Plan PresentationSperos32 further added successful functioning in the patient role as a core construct of health literacy (online supplementary table S1). Several studies viewed health literacy as a hierarchy of functions, which require different levels of social and cognitive skills. Nutbeam3 first proposed the three-­level model: functional health literacy, interactive health literacy and critical health literacy. This model was further clarified and expanded by several researchers.34 36 40–42 45 47 In Nutbeam’s prototypical model, functional health literacy refers to ‘basic skills in reading and writing to enable individuals to function effectively in everyday situations’; interactive health literacy covers ‘more advanced skills to extract information and derive meaning from different forms of communication, and to apply new information to change circumstances’; critical health literacy requires ‘the highest-­level of skills to critically analyse and use information to exert greater control over life events and situations’.3 Schillinger47 interpreted functional health literacy as literacy and numeracy. Chinn34 considered critical health literacy as the function of understanding social determinants of health and engaging in collective actions. Sykes et al believed that critical health literacy covers advanced personal skills, health knowledge, information skills, effective interactions between service providers and users, informed decision making, and empowerment including political actions.36 Manganello40 added media literacy, the ability to critically assess media messages, as a separate construct into health literacy for adolescents to highlight the importance of media use in the specific population. Liao et al42 examined the meaning of the Nutbeam model in children: 4 functional health literacy—understanding basic health concepts, comprehending the relationship between health behaviours and health outcomes, and performing basic health behaviours; interactive health literacy— maintaining good relationships with peers, appropriately expressing oneself and responding to others, and sufficiently understanding a variety of information from the environment; critical health literacy—assessing, analysing and predicting the influence of health information of all types and responding appropriately (online supplementary table S1). Apart from the abovementioned models, some researchers attempted to conceptualise health literacy from other perspectives. Drawn on experts’ views, Soellner perception, proactive et al23 proposed addition of self-­ approach to health, self-­regulation and self-­control into the concept of health literacy. By contrast, Jordan et al26 examined the views of patients and proposed three dimensions of health literacy: identifying a health issue (knowing when and where to find health information), engaging in information exchange (verbal communication skills, assertiveness and literacy skills) and acting on health information (capacity to process and retain information, and application skills). Buchbinder et al20 combined the views from both patients and health professionals and summarised health literacy as knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skills, actions and context in relation to 16 aspects such as diseases, health systems, information and others. Several studies emphasised some special elements critical to a particular population: for example, consistency, delivery and contents of information for sexual health of gay men48; self-­management skills and active involvement in consultations for patients with chronic diseases44; relationships and support systems for cancer caregivers49; patient–provider relationship and preventive care (indicating a proactive approach to health); and the rights and responsibilities (capturing principles of self-­efficacy and empowerment to manage one’s health environment) for adolescents.39 Freedman et al focused on public health literacy and proposed civic orientation, indicating skills and resources needed to address health concerns by civic engagement, as one of the aspects of health literacy.22 Zarcadoolas et al31 added science ..Discussion: Educational Plan Presentation Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10 Order NowjQuery(document).ready(function($) { $.post(‘https://nursingpaperessays.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php’, {action: ‘wpt_view_count’, id: ‘16980’});});jQuery(document).ready(function($) { $.post(‘https://nursingpaperessays.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php’, {action: ‘mts_view_count’, id: ‘16980’});});

Hire a competent writer to help you with

Discussion: Educational Plan Presentation

troublesome homework