Health Communication
Conditions
Keywords
Information Visualization
Brief summary
To complete the study aims, a mixed methods study that includes a single group pretest-posttest study design will be used to pilot test the infographic intervention. In-depth interviews will be completed with a selection of participants to explore participant perceptions of HIV-related communication using infographics. Data will be collected from participants through baseline (at enrollment) and follow up assessments at 3- and 6-month follow up visits). Follow up interviews will be conducted with members of the clinical team to ascertain their perspectives on the clinical utility of infographics.
Detailed description
Latinos are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the US, and they are disproportionately affected by HIV. In 2014, almost 25% of new cases of HIV infections were among Latinos although they only represent 17% of the US population. Additionally, Latinos have a faster rate of progression from HIV to AIDS, higher rates of HIV-related deaths, and marked delay in the diagnosis of infections. Approximately 42% of HIV diagnoses among Latinos in the US are in persons born abroad. In absolute numbers, new HIV diagnoses among foreign-born individuals in the US were the highest among Caribbean-born persons, which may partially be attributed to high rates of bidirectional travel. It is, therefore, critical that HIV prevention and treatment activities incorporate factors associated with Latino immigrant and transnational groups. In Washington Heights, New York City, understanding these factors related with bi-directional travel to the Dominican Republic (DR) is warranted, as the Latino population of Washington Heights is largely comprised of Dominicans. Many factors contribute to the health disparities experienced by Latinos, of which low health literacy and literacy in general are potential contributors. Health literacy, or the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions, is an established concern affecting vulnerable communities globally. Not surprisingly, Spanish-speaking, less educated, and/or foreign-born Latinos have lower health literacy than those born in the US. Low health literacy can lead to worse health outcomes, less use of services, and poorer knowledge of illness. Also, patients with limited health literacy are likely to have low numeracy which affects interpretations of medication quantities, time between doses, and time between appointments, among other quantitative knowledge relating to effective management of HIV. Infographics are emerging technologies to help teach complex health concepts to patients with low health literacy. When effectively designed, infographics (information visualizations) contain a depth and breadth of information and lead to improved understanding of concepts. By carefully selecting the design and included content, simple images can convey large amounts of information in a visually appealing and comprehensible way. Methodically constructed infographics have been shown to improve communication about health behaviors and health risks and minimize comprehension differences between individuals with high and low health literacy. They can also help improve information exchange amidst culture and language differences by using images familiar to patients to explain complicated processes as well as augment attention span and recall of learned material. Furthermore, rigorously designed and evaluated infographics can help mitigate health disparities by helping clinicians provide the information that people need for effective health management in an understandable way. During preliminary studies, the investigators developed a set of infographics designed to facilitate HIV-related clinician-patient communication during clinic visits. Initial infographics were designed by persons living with HIV (PLWH) in the Dominican Republic and are now being tested for feasibility and usability among a cohort in the DR. In this study, the investigators propose to assess the feasibility of using the infographic intervention in a clinic that specializes in HIV care in Washington Heights to improve clinical communication and subsequently, patient outcomes. Additionally, the investigators will collect information about acculturation and bi-directional travel to more thoroughly assess how these factors relate to HIV infection among Hispanic/Latino populations living in the US.
Interventions
Information visualizations (infographics) will be used to teach participants about HIV during study visits immediately following their normal clinic visits.
Sponsors
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
Columbia University
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
This study will use a single pretest-posttest design to evaluate if using infographics for patient education can lead to improved patient outcomes.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Adult ≥ 18 years of age * Living with HIV and has a detectable viral load * Self-identifies as Hispanic/Latino * Plan to receive care at the same clinic for the next 6 months
Exclusion criteria
* Does not meet inclusion criteria * Not able to understand study procedures or provide informed consent
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean CD4 Count | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | Mean Cluster of Differentiation 4 (CD4) count at each time point. |
| Mean Viral Load | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | Mean viral load at each time point |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Score on the SEMCD Scale | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | The Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) scale is a 6-item questionnaire that measures confidence in one's ability to manage fatigue, pain, emotional distress, and other symptoms using self-management techniques. Each item is scored from a minimum value of 1 which indicates not at all confident to a maximum score of 10, which indicates completely confident. Final scores are calculated as the mean of the 6 questions ranging from 1(minimum) to 10 (maximum), where higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy (better outcome). |
| Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | Adherence will be measured with the validated simplified medication adherence questionnaire (SMAQ)-6 scale, a 6-item questionnaire. A person is considered non-adherent if there is a yes answer for any of items 1,2,3, and 5. Additionally, if they answer that they have missed more than two doses of their medication in the past week (item 4) or if they have gone more than two days without taking their medication in the past 3 months (item 6), they are also considered non-adherent. |
| Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | Participants rated their general health as excellent, very good, good, more or less, or bad. |
| Mean Score on Current Health Status | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | Current health status will be assessed with one question from the Health Status Assessment which asks participants to rate their current health by providing a number on a scale from 0 - 100 where 0=death or worst possible health and 100=perfect or best possible health. |
| Mean Score on HIV-related Knowledge Assessment | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | 14 questions pertaining to HIV-related knowledge were developed according to the information that will be included in the intervention. Participants will receive one point for each correct answer and then the scores for each question will be summed to obtain a final score. Therefore, the minimum score will be 0 and maximum score will be 14 where the scores closer to 14 indicate patients have more HIV-related knowledge. |
| Number of Participants With Likely Limited, Possibly Limited, or Adequate Health Literacy According to NVS Measurement | Baseline visit only | A second measure of health literacy, the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) will also be administered. Scores on this scale range from 0-6 where a score of 0-1 suggests high likelihood of limited literacy, a score of 2-3 indicates the possibility of limited literacy, and a score of 4-6 almost always indicates adequate literacy. |
| Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA | Baseline visit only | The Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (Brief ARSMA)12 item instrument that assesses level of acculturation that has been used in Mexican Americans as well as other Latino subgroups, including Dominicans. Scores are calculated by summing the scores and dividing by 12 to get a mean acculturation. Higher scores indicate greater acculturation. |
| Percent of Participants Who Complete an In-depth Qualitative Interview | 6 months after baseline | Participants will be invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview regarding their experiences. The number who participate will be reported as a percent of the total who are enrolled. |
| Number of Participants With Likely Low vs. Adequate Health Literacy According to SAHL-S&E Measurement | Baseline visit only | Health literacy will be assessed using the short assessment of health literacy- Spanish. Scores range from 0 - 18 and a score above a 15 indicates that participants are likely to have adequate health literacy. |
| Mean Score on Satisfaction With Care Scale | Baseline, 3-, and 6-months | 7 questions on patients' satisfaction with health care provider and the health care center adapted from previously validated instruments were included. Each question response from included questions has a different score range: Question 1: 1 - 7 Question 2: 1 - 10 Question 3: 1 - 7 Question 4: 1 - 5 Question 5: 1 - 7 Question 6: 1 - 7 Question 7: 1 - 5 Total scores range from 7 - 48, which is calculated from the lowest and highest possible scores on each of the included questions. Higher scores indicating more satisfaction with care. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Intervention Group Participants in the intervention group will receive health education using infographics (Infographic Intervention) during a study visit scheduled immediately following their regularly scheduled clinic visits.
Infographic intervention: Information visualizations (infographics) will be used to teach participants about HIV during study visits immediately following their normal clinic visits. | 30 |
| Total | 30 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 6 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawn by PI | 2 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Intervention Group |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 52.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.19 |
| Country of birth Dominican Republic | 15 Participants |
| Country of birth Other | 6 Participants |
| Country of birth United States | 9 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 30 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Highest level of education completed 0-5 years of school | 4 Participants |
| Highest level of education completed 6-8 years of school | 6 Participants |
| Highest level of education completed 9-11 years of school | 6 Participants |
| Highest level of education completed Finished HS/ has GED | 10 Participants |
| Highest level of education completed University or other education past HS | 4 Participants |
| Married or in a serious relationship Married or in a serious relationship | 7 Participants |
| Married or in a serious relationship NOT married or in a serious relationship | 23 Participants |
| New Patient Established patient | 26 Participants |
| New Patient New patient | 4 Participants |
| Preferred language of participation English-speaking | 12 Participants |
| Preferred language of participation Spanish-speaking | 18 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 12 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 10 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 4 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 30 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 11 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 18 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Other | 1 Participants |
| Years attending the clinic | 10.04 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.41 |
| Years living with HIV | 16.28 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7 |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 30 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 30 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 30 |
Outcome results
Primary
Mean CD4 Count
Mean Cluster of Differentiation 4 (CD4) count at each time point.
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn by the PI and were not included in analyses.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean CD4 Count | CD4 Count at Baseline | 321.5 Cells/mm^3 | Standard Deviation 1038 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean CD4 Count | CD4 Count after second exposure to intervention | 418 Cells/mm^3 | Standard Deviation 944 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean CD4 Count | CD4 Count after third exposure to intervention | 390.5 Cells/mm^3 | Standard Deviation 834 |
Comparison: Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.p-value: 0.28395% CI: [-48.9, 163.7]Quantile Regression
Comparison: Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.p-value: 0.182395% CI: [-29.5, 151.2]Quantile regression
Primary
Mean Viral Load
Mean viral load at each time point
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Viral Load | Baseline/exposure 1 | 97,266 copies/mL |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Viral Load | Exposure 2 | 93,242 copies/mL |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Viral Load | Exposure 3 | 21,116 copies/mL |
Comparison: Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.p-value: 0.779595% CI: [-339.8, 255.8]Quantile Regression
Comparison: Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.p-value: 0.597195% CI: [-296.1, 170.1]Quantile Regression
Secondary
Mean Score on Current Health Status
Current health status will be assessed with one question from the Health Status Assessment which asks participants to rate their current health by providing a number on a scale from 0 - 100 where 0=death or worst possible health and 100=perfect or best possible health.
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on Current Health Status | Baseline/exposure 1 | 68 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 20.66 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on Current Health Status | Exposure 2 | 75.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 17.03 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on Current Health Status | Exposure 3 | 82.29 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 16.8 |
Comparison: Statistical analysis of current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.p-value: 0.057295% CI: [-0.3, 18.6]Quantile Regression
Comparison: Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.p-value: 0.033295% CI: [1.1, 25.1]Quantile Regression
Secondary
Mean Score on HIV-related Knowledge Assessment
14 questions pertaining to HIV-related knowledge were developed according to the information that will be included in the intervention. Participants will receive one point for each correct answer and then the scores for each question will be summed to obtain a final score. Therefore, the minimum score will be 0 and maximum score will be 14 where the scores closer to 14 indicate patients have more HIV-related knowledge.
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on HIV-related Knowledge Assessment | Baseline/exposure 1 | 10.10 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.43 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on HIV-related Knowledge Assessment | Exposure 2 | 12.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.51 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on HIV-related Knowledge Assessment | Exposure 3 | 12.21 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.59 |
Comparison: Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [1.2, 3]Quantile Regression
Comparison: Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [1.2, 2.8]Quantile Regression
Secondary
Mean Score on Satisfaction With Care Scale
7 questions on patients' satisfaction with health care provider and the health care center adapted from previously validated instruments were included. Each question response from included questions has a different score range: Question 1: 1 - 7 Question 2: 1 - 10 Question 3: 1 - 7 Question 4: 1 - 5 Question 5: 1 - 7 Question 6: 1 - 7 Question 7: 1 - 5 Total scores range from 7 - 48, which is calculated from the lowest and highest possible scores on each of the included questions. Higher scores indicating more satisfaction with care.
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on Satisfaction With Care Scale | Baseline/exposure 1 | 44.93 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.4 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on Satisfaction With Care Scale | Exposure 2 | 45.18 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.81 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on Satisfaction With Care Scale | Exposure 3 | 44.29 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.06 |
Secondary
Mean Score on the SEMCD Scale
The Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) scale is a 6-item questionnaire that measures confidence in one's ability to manage fatigue, pain, emotional distress, and other symptoms using self-management techniques. Each item is scored from a minimum value of 1 which indicates not at all confident to a maximum score of 10, which indicates completely confident. Final scores are calculated as the mean of the 6 questions ranging from 1(minimum) to 10 (maximum), where higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy (better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on the SEMCD Scale | Baseline/exposure 1 | 8.01 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.72 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on the SEMCD Scale | Exposure 2 | 8.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.46 |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Mean Score on the SEMCD Scale | Exposure 3 | 8.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.89 |
Comparison: Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.p-value: 0.987995% CI: [-0.7, 0.7]Quantile Regression
Comparison: Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.p-value: 0.15595% CI: [-0.2, 1.4]Quantile Regression
Secondary
Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA
The Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (Brief ARSMA)12 item instrument that assesses level of acculturation that has been used in Mexican Americans as well as other Latino subgroups, including Dominicans. Scores are calculated by summing the scores and dividing by 12 to get a mean acculturation. Higher scores indicate greater acculturation.
Time frame: Baseline visit only
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI and, therefore, were not included in analyses
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA | Very oriented to original culture | 13 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA | Oriented to original culture to approximately balanced bicultural | 6 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA | Slightly Anglo oriented bicultural | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA | Strongly Anglo oriented | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants in Each Acculturation Category Presented in the Brief ARSMA | Very assimilated | 3 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications
Adherence will be measured with the validated simplified medication adherence questionnaire (SMAQ)-6 scale, a 6-item questionnaire. A person is considered non-adherent if there is a yes answer for any of items 1,2,3, and 5. Additionally, if they answer that they have missed more than two doses of their medication in the past week (item 4) or if they have gone more than two days without taking their medication in the past 3 months (item 6), they are also considered non-adherent.
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Baseline/exposure 1 | Adherent | 10 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Baseline/exposure 1 | Non-adherent | 20 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Baseline/exposure 1 | Missing | 0 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Exposure 2 | Adherent | 7 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Exposure 2 | Non-adherent | 15 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Exposure 2 | Missing | 8 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Exposure 3 | Adherent | 11 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Exposure 3 | Non-adherent | 13 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Are Adherent to Their Medications | Exposure 3 | Missing | 6 Participants |
Comparison: For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent.p-value: 0.81995% CI: [0.3, 4.52]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent.p-value: 0.133295% CI: [0.07, 1.43]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories
Participants rated their general health as excellent, very good, good, more or less, or bad.
Time frame: Baseline, 3-, and 6-months
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI, therefore, 30 subjects were included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline/exposure 1 | Bad | 1 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline/exposure 1 | More or less | 15 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline/exposure 1 | Good | 6 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline/exposure 1 | Very Good | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline/exposure 1 | Excellent | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Baseline/exposure 1 | Missing | 0 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 2 | Bad | 0 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 2 | More or less | 10 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 2 | Good | 7 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 2 | Very Good | 1 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 2 | Excellent | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 2 | Missing | 8 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 3 | Bad | 0 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 3 | More or less | 11 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 3 | Good | 5 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 3 | Very Good | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 3 | Excellent | 4 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants Who Reported Each of the 5 General Health Categories | Exposure 3 | Missing | 6 Participants |
Comparison: For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad.p-value: 0.31695% CI: [0.57, 5.46]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad.p-value: 0.860995% CI: [0.32, 3.93]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Number of Participants With Likely Limited, Possibly Limited, or Adequate Health Literacy According to NVS Measurement
A second measure of health literacy, the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) will also be administered. Scores on this scale range from 0-6 where a score of 0-1 suggests high likelihood of limited literacy, a score of 2-3 indicates the possibility of limited literacy, and a score of 4-6 almost always indicates adequate literacy.
Time frame: Baseline visit only
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI and, therefore, their data are not included in analyses.
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants With Likely Limited, Possibly Limited, or Adequate Health Literacy According to NVS Measurement | Likely adequate health literacy | 5 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants With Likely Limited, Possibly Limited, or Adequate Health Literacy According to NVS Measurement | Possibility of limited health literacy | 11 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants With Likely Limited, Possibly Limited, or Adequate Health Literacy According to NVS Measurement | Likely limited health literacy | 14 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Likely Low vs. Adequate Health Literacy According to SAHL-S&E Measurement
Health literacy will be assessed using the short assessment of health literacy- Spanish. Scores range from 0 - 18 and a score above a 15 indicates that participants are likely to have adequate health literacy.
Time frame: Baseline visit only
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI and, therefore, their data are not included in the analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants With Likely Low vs. Adequate Health Literacy According to SAHL-S&E Measurement | Missing | 1 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants With Likely Low vs. Adequate Health Literacy According to SAHL-S&E Measurement | Likely adequate health literacy | 16 Participants |
| Infographic Intervention Group | Number of Participants With Likely Low vs. Adequate Health Literacy According to SAHL-S&E Measurement | Likely low health literacy | 13 Participants |
Secondary
Percent of Participants Who Complete an In-depth Qualitative Interview
Participants will be invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview regarding their experiences. The number who participate will be reported as a percent of the total who are enrolled.
Time frame: 6 months after baseline
Population: 2 participants were withdrawn from the study by the PI and, therefore, they are not included in analyses.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Infographic Intervention Group | Percent of Participants Who Complete an In-depth Qualitative Interview | 24 Participants |