[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.194.83. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Table 1.  
Baseline Characteristics of 704 Patients Undergoing Day Surgery in Different Functional Health Literacy Levelsa
Baseline Characteristics of 704 Patients Undergoing Day Surgery in Different Functional Health Literacy Levelsa
Table 2.  
Comparison of Swedish Quality of Recovery Items and Total Score 14 Days After Day Surgery Between Functional Health Literacy Groups (N = 645)
Comparison of Swedish Quality of Recovery Items and Total Score 14 Days After Day Surgery Between Functional Health Literacy Groups (N = 645)
Table 3.  
Comparison of Health-related Quality of Life Among the 3 Functional Health Literacy Groups (N = 704)
Comparison of Health-related Quality of Life Among the 3 Functional Health Literacy Groups (N = 704)
Table 4.  
Health Care Contacts of Patients Undergoing Day Surgery in Different Functional Health Literacy Levels (N = 704)a
Health Care Contacts of Patients Undergoing Day Surgery in Different Functional Health Literacy Levels (N = 704)a
1.
Toftgaard  C.  ‘Presidential’: day surgery development.  Ambul Surg. 2009;15(1):4p-4p. http://www.iaas-med.com/files/Journal/15/15_1/Toftgaard.pdfGoogle Scholar
2.
Correa  R, Menezes  RB, Wong  J, Yogendran  S, Jenkins  K, Chung  F.  Compliance with postoperative instructions: a telephone survey of 750 day surgery patients.  Anaesthesia. 2001;56(5):481-484.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Mitchell  M.  Home recovery following day surgery: a patient perspective.  J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(3-4):415-427.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Koster  ES, Schmidt  A, Philbert  D, van de Garde  EMW, Bouvy  ML.  Health literacy of patients admitted for elective surgery.  Z Gesundh Wiss. 2017;25(2):181-186.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Nutbeam  D.  The evolving concept of health literacy.  Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(12):2072-2078.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Berkman  ND, Sheridan  SL, Donahue  KE, Halpern  DJ, Crotty  K.  Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97-107.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Mitchell  SE, Sadikova  E, Jack  BW, Paasche-Orlow  MK.  Health literacy and 30-day postdischarge hospital utilization.  J Health Commun. 2012;17(suppl 3):325-338.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Koster  ES, Philbert  D, Bouvy  ML.  Health literacy among pharmacy visitors in the Netherlands.  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(7):716-721.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Cox  SR, Liebl  MG, McComb  MN,  et al.  Association between health literacy and 30-day healthcare use after hospital discharge in the heart failure population.  Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(4):754-758.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Javadzade  SH, Sharifirad  G, Radjati  F, Mostafavi  F, Reisi  M, Hasanzade  A.  Relationship between health literacy, health status, and healthy behaviors among older adults in Isfahan, Iran.  J Educ Health Promot. 2012;1:31.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Jayasinghe  UW, Harris  MF, Parker  SM,  et al; Preventive Evidence into Practice (PEP) Partnership Group.  The impact of health literacy and life style risk factors on health-related quality of life of Australian patients.  Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:68.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Wright  JP, Edwards  GC, Goggins  K,  et al.  Association of health literacy with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.  JAMA Surg. 2017;153(2):137-142.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Wångdahl  J, Lytsy  P, Mårtensson  L, Westerling  R.  Health literacy among refugees in Sweden—a cross-sectional study.  BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1030.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Clouston  SAP, Manganello  JA, Richards  M.  A life course approach to health literacy: the role of gender, educational attainment and lifetime cognitive capability.  Age Ageing. 2017;46(3):493-499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Jessup  RL, Osborne  RH, Beauchamp  A, Bourne  A, Buchbinder  R.  Health literacy of recently hospitalised patients: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ).  BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):52.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Chew  LD, Bradley  KA, Flum  DR, Cornia  PB, Koepsell  TD.  The impact of low health literacy on surgical practice.  Am J Surg. 2004;188(3):250-253.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Zite  NB, Wallace  LS.  Use of a low-literacy informed consent form to improve women’s understanding of tubal sterilization: a randomized controlled trial.  Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1160-1166.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Nilsson  U, Jaensson  M, Dahlberg  K,  et al.  RAPP, a systematic e-assessment of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing day surgery: study protocol for a mixed-methods study design including a multicentre, two-group, parallel, single-blind randomised controlled trial and qualitative interview studies.  BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009901.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Dahlberg  K, Philipsson  A, Hagberg  L, Jaensson  M, Hälleberg-Nyman  M, Nilsson  U.  Cost-effectiveness of a systematic e-assessed follow-up of postoperative recovery after day surgery: a multicentre randomized trial.  Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(5):1039-1046.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Wångdahl  JM, Mårtensson  LI.  Measuring health literacy—the Swedish Functional Health Literacy scale.  Scand J Caring Sci. 2015;29(1):165-172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Jaensson  M, Dahlberg  K, Eriksson  M, Nilsson  U.  Evaluation of postoperative recovery in day surgery patients using a mobile phone application: a multicentre randomized trial.  Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(5):1030-1038.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Nilsson  U, Dahlberg  K, Jaensson  M.  The Swedish web version of the quality of recovery scale adapted for use in a mobile app: prospective psychometric evaluation study.  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(12):e188.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Dolan  P.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.  Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-1108.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
EuroQol Group.  EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.  Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Sullivan  M, Karlsson  J, Ware  JE  Jr.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey—I. evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden.  Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1349-1358.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Persson  LO, Karlsson  J, Bengtsson  C, Steen  B, Sullivan  M.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey II. evaluation of clinical validity: results from population studies of elderly and women in Gothenborg.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1095-1103.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Sullivan  M, Karlsson  J.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1105-1113.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Myles  PS, Weitkamp  B, Jones  K, Melick  J, Hensen  S.  Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40.  Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(1):11-15.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Stark  PA, Myles  PS, Burke  JA.  Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15.  Anesthesiology. 2013;118(6):1332-1340.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Gornall  BF, Myles  PS, Smith  CL,  et al.  Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: a quantitative systematic review.  Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(2):161-169.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Nilsson  U, Berg  K, Unosson  M, Brudin  L, Idvall  E.  Relation between personality and quality of postoperative recovery in day surgery patients.  Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26(8):671-675.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Berg  K, Arestedt  K, Kjellgren  K.  Postoperative recovery from the perspective of day surgery patients: a phenomenographic study.  Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(12):1630-1638.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Bowyer  A, Royse  C.  The importance of postoperative quality of recovery: influences, assessment, and clinical and prognostic implications.  Can J Anaesth. 2016;63(2):176-183.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Allvin  R, Berg  K, Idvall  E, Nilsson  U.  Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis.  J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(5):552-558.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Wang  C, Kane  RL, Xu  D, Meng  Q.  Health literacy as a moderator of health-related quality of life responses to chronic disease among Chinese rural women.  BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:34.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Bailey  SC, O’Conor  R, Bojarski  EA,  et al.  Literacy disparities in patient access and health-related use of internet and mobile technologies.  Health Expect. 2015;18(6):3079-3087.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Davidsson  P, Finndahl  O.  Svenskarna och internet 2016: undersökning om svenskarnas internetvanor. Stockholm, Sweden: IIS, Internetstiftelsen i Sverige; 2016.
38.
Jaensson  M, Dahlberg  K, Eriksson  M, Grönlund  Å, Nilsson  U.  The Development of the Recovery Assessments by Phone Points (RAPP): a mobile phone app for postoperative recovery monitoring and assessment.  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(3):e86.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Dahlberg  K, Jaensson  M, Eriksson  M, Nilsson  U.  Evaluation of the Swedish Web-Version of Quality of Recovery (SwQoR): secondary step in the development of a mobile phone app to measure postoperative recovery.  JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(3):e192.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Jaensson  M, Nilsson  U.  Impact of changing positively worded items to negatively worded items in the Swedish web-version of the Quality of Recovery (SwQoR) questionnaire.  J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(3):502-507.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Sahm  LJ, Wolf  MS, Curtis  LM, McCarthy  S.  Prevalence of limited health literacy among Irish adults.  J Health Commun. 2012;17(suppl 3):100-108.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Chew  LD, Griffin  JM, Partin  MR,  et al.  Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population.  J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561-566.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Wu  Y, Wang  L, Cai  Z, Bao  L, Ai  P, Ai  Z.  Prevalence and risk factors of low health literacy: a community-based study in Shanghai, China.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(6):E628.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Berens  EM, Vogt  D, Messer  M, Hurrelmann  K, Schaeffer  D.  Health literacy among different age groups in Germany: results of a cross-sectional survey.  BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1151.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    August 2018

    Association Between Functional Health Literacy and Postoperative Recovery, Health Care Contacts, and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Day Surgery: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
    JAMA Surg. 2018;153(8):738-745. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0672
    Key Points

    Question  Are there associations between health literacy and postoperative recovery, health care contacts, and quality of life in patients undergoing day surgery?

    Findings  In this study of 704 patients who were undergoing day surgery as part of a randomized clinical trial, lower health literacy levels were associated with a low quality of postoperative recovery and quality of life. However, low health literacy levels were not associated with increased health care contacts.

    Meaning  Identifying patients with low health literacy and addressing their specific needs are important factors to consider for optimizing the postoperative recovery in day surgery patients.

    Abstract

    Importance  Day surgery puts demands on the patients to manage their own recovery at home according to given instructions. Low health literacy levels are shown to be associated with poorer health outcomes.

    Objective  To describe functional health literacy levels among patients in Sweden undergoing day surgery and to describe the association between functional health literacy (FHL) and health care contacts, quality of recovery (SwQoR), and health-related quality of life.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This observational study was part of a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing day surgery and was performed in multiple centers from October 2015 to July 2016 and included 704 patients.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary end point was SwQoR in the FHL groups 14 days after surgery. Secondary end points were health care contacts, EuroQol-visual analog scales, and the Short Form (36) Health Survey in the FHL groups.

    Results  Of 704 patients (418 [59.4%] women; mean [SD] age with inadequate or problematic FHL levels, 47 [16] years and 49 [15.1], respectively), 427 (60.7%) reported sufficient FHL, 223 (31.7%) problematic FHL, and 54 (7.7%) inadequate FHL. The global score of SwQoR indicated poor recovery in both inadequate (37.4) and problematic (22.9) FHL. There was a statistically significant difference in the global score of SwQoR (SD) between inadequate (37.4 [34.7]) and sufficient FHL (17.7 [21.0]) (P < .001). The patients with inadequate or problematic FHL had a lower health-related quality of life than the patients with sufficient FHL in terms of EuroQol-visual analog scale scores (mean [SD], 73 [19.1], 73 [19.1], and 78 [17.4], respectively; P = .008), physical function (mean [SD], 72 [22.7], 75 [23.8], and 81 [21.9], respectively; P < .001), bodily pain (mean [SD], 51 [28.7], 53 [27.4], and 61 [27.0], respectively; P = .001), vitality (mean [SD], 50 [26.7], 56 [23.5], and 62 [25.4], respectively; P < .001), social functioning (mean [SD], 73 [28.2], 81 [21.8], and 84 [23.3], respectively; P = .004), mental health (mean [SD], 65 [25.4], 73 [21.2], and 77 [21.2], respectively; P < .001), and physical component summary (mean [SD], 41 [11.2], 42 [11.3], and 45 [10.1], respectively; P = .004). There were no differences between the FHL groups regarding health care contacts.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Inadequate FHL in patients undergoing day surgery was associated with poorer postoperative recovery and a lower health-related quality of life. Health literacy is a relevant factor to consider for optimizing the postoperative recovery in patients undergoing day surgery.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02492191

    Introduction

    In the last decades, more and more surgical procedures have been performed as day surgery.1,2 Patients are spending less time in the hospital, and this places greater demands on the patients and their relatives. Most of the recovery process after surgery occurs at home without direct supervision from health care professionals.3 Patients undergoing day surgery are therefore provided with oral information and written instructions on how to aid recovery at home.3 Patients in today’s health care system are expected to take part and to be engaged in their own care. Consequently, they have to be able to read and understand health instructions on how to manage their own recovery at home.4 Functional health literacy (FHL) is defined as an individual’s capacity to gain access to, and to understand and use, information in ways to promote and maintain good health.5 Several studies have raised awareness of health literacy and its consequences for the individual as well as for aspects of health economy.6-9

    In earlier research, low levels of FHL were shown to be associated with poorer general health,10 lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL),11 more hospitalizations,6,7,9,10,12 and a greater use of emergency care.6,9,10,13 Low health literacy levels are also associated with female sex10 as well as male sex,14 fewer years of schooling,9,10,15 older age,9,10,15 and lower household income.15 Preoperatively, there are several associations with low FHL, such as patients’ understanding of perioperative instructions,16 appointment schedules,6 general consent forms,17 and prescription labels.6 Considering this, the association between FHL and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing day surgery needs to be assessed. However, to our knowledge, there are no studies on patients undergoing day surgery that investigate these questions. The aim of this study was to describe functional health literacy levels among patients in Sweden undergoing day surgery and to describe the association between functional health literacy and postoperative recovery, HRQoL, and unplanned health care visits.

    Methods
    Study Design and Setting

    This observational study was part of a multicenter, 2-group, parallel, single-blind randomized clinical trial conducted from October 2015 to July 2016 at 4 day surgery departments in Sweden.18 The primary outcome for the randomized clinical trial was the cost-effectiveness of using Recovery Assessment by Phone Points (RAPP) for follow-up after day surgery compared with no follow-up with RAPP after day surgery. Recovery Assessment by Phone Points is an electronically assessed follow-up that measures quality of recovery with the Swedish web version of Quality of Recovery (SwQoR) and also enables patients to request a contact telephone call with a nurse from the day surgery department where the surgery was carried out.19 The study was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration (6th revision) and was approved by the Uppsala/Örebro Region ethics committee (2015/262). Oral and written consent was obtained from all participants.

    Sample Selection

    Inclusion criteria were undergoing day surgery, being 18 years or older, having access to a smartphone, and being able to understand the Swedish language in writing and speech. Exclusion criteria were alcohol and/or drug use, visual impairment, cognitive impairment, or undergoing a surgical abortion. In the main randomized clinical trial, a computer-generated randomization, including random permuted blocks to ensure similar numbers of participants in each group, was used. The randomization was also stratified by center.18

    Questionnaires

    The Swedish FHL scale is intended for self-assessment and consists of 5 items on functional skills. The assessments are made on a 5-grade ordinal scale according to how often items agree with the person’s own experiences; that is, never, seldom, sometimes, often, or always (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). The first item focuses on visual ability related to the design of the text and its accessibility, the following 2 deal with understanding words and concepts, the fourth focuses on the ability to persevere in reading, and the last asks about needing help in reading and understanding information. The FHL level of each participant was calculated and the FHL levels were categorized into 3 FHL groups: inadequate (reporting “often” or “always” to 1 or more of the 5 items), problematic (“sometimes” to at least 1 item and not “often” or “always” to any items), or sufficient (responding “never” or “seldom” to all items).20 The Swedish FHL scale has been psychometrically tested in a Swedish population and found to be reliable and valid in terms of content validity.20

    The SwQoR measures quality of recovery and is a multi-item questionnaire including 24 items (symptoms/signs) on an 11-point numerical rating scale from 0 (“none of the time”) to 10 (“all of the time”) (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). The global score for SwQoR ranges between 0 (excellent postoperative recovery) and 240 (poor postoperative recovery). The assumption was made in an earlier study that postoperative recovery improves over time, and therefore, analysis was guided by the mean of the total SwQoR score with an indication of good postoperative recovery of less than 31 at day 7 and less than 21 at day 14 indicating a good recovery.21 The SwQoR has been psychometrically tested and found to be valid, and has excellent reliability and a high degree of responsiveness.22

    To measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL), the EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS; EuroQol Research Foundation)23,24 and Short Form (SF)-36 Health Survey25 were used. The EQ-VAS consists of a 20-cm vertically graduated visual analog scale with end points (anchors) of 0 (indicating the worst imaginable health state) and 100 (indicating the best imaginable health state).

    The SF-36 Health Survey consists of 36 items grouped into 8 multi-item scales that measure physical function, role function, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and mental health. All scales are scored from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating better health status. Two summary scores are calculated, the physical component summary and the mental component summary; these summaries reflect overall physical and mental health status.25-27 The validity and reliability of the SF-36 has been shown to be acceptable in a general Swedish population.25-27

    To measure health care contacts, a study-specific questionnaire was used. The questionnaire included 5 yes/no questions regarding the number of surgery-related health care contacts with primary care, emergency department (ED), or Sweden’s 24-hour helpline 1177; outpatient hospital visit, or contact via RAPP (this option was only possible for the intervention group). Patients’ age, sex, type of surgery and anesthesia, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class were also collected.

    Data Collection

    A research nurse was responsible for participants’ inclusion at their day surgery department and made sure that all participants who were eligible for inclusion in the study were offered enrolment. Written information about the study was sent out together with information about the planned surgery. Oral information was provided preoperatively on the day of surgery. Preoperatively, on the day of surgery, the participants answered paper-based questionnaires, SF-36 and EQ-VAS; at 2-weeks postoperatively they answered Swedish FHL and SwQoR as well as the questionnaire regarding contacts with health care during that 2-week period following surgery.

    Statistical Analysis

    Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics, version 24 (IBM) and Microsoft Office Excel, version 2013 (Microsoft). Descriptive analyses were conducted for sociodemographic factors, type of anesthesia and surgery, ASA classification, and SwQoR and HRQoL characteristics. Guided from earlier studies, means and standard deviations were used for SwQoR.21,28-30 The differences between the patients in the 3 FHL groups were analyzed. For nominal data, χ2 was used; for ordinal data the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons between 2 groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparisons between 3 groups, and for normally distributed continuous data, 1-way analysis of variance was used. A P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    In the main study,18 1027 patients were included; of these, 704 patients (68.5%) completed the Swedish FHL questionnaire and constitute the sample of this study. Of these patients, 418 (59.4%) were women and 286 (40.6%) were men. Most (n = 427 [60.6%]) of the 704 patients undergoing day surgery reported sufficient FHL, 223 (31.7%) reported problematic FHL, and 54 (7.7%) reported inadequate FHL. There were no statistical differences between the 3 groups in age, sex, type of anesthesia and surgery, or ASA classification (Table 1).

    Functional Health Literacy and Postoperative Recovery

    The global score of SwQoR indicated poor recovery in both inadequate (37.2) and problematic (22.9) FHL. There was a statistically significant difference in global score (SD) of SwQoR between inadequate (37.4 [34.7]) and sufficient (17.7 [21.0]) FHL (P < .001). Most differences, 13 of 24 items (54.2%), were found between inadequate and sufficient FHL: trouble breathing (mean [SD], 0.8 [2.1] vs 0.1 [0.8]; P = .002), sleeping difficulties (mean [SD], 2.4 [2.9] vs 0.9 [1.9]; P < .001), not having a general feeling of well-being (mean [SD], 2.7 [3.2] vs 1.0 [1.8]; P < .001), not feeling in control of my situation (mean [SD], 2.1 [2.9] vs 0.7 [1.7]; P < .001), having difficulty feeling relaxed (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.9] vs 0.9 [1.7]; P < .001), voice not sounding the same as usual (mean [SD], 1.0 [2.2] vs 0.3 [1.4]; P < .001), having difficulty taking care of my personal hygiene (mean [SD], 2.6 [3.0] vs 1.0 [2.0]; P < .001), dizziness (mean [SD], 0.8 [1.7] vs 0.3 [1.2]; P = .001), depressed (mean [SD], 2.0 [2.7] vs 0.7 [1.6]; P < .001), anxiety (mean [SD], 1.5 [2.1] vs 0.8 [1.7]; P = .001), sore mouth (mean [SD], 0.5 [1.5] vs 0.2 [0.9]; P = .001), difficulties concentrating (mean [SD], 1.5 [2.3] vs 0.5 [1.3]; P < .001), and fever (mean [SD], 0.6 [1.4] vs 0.2 [0.9]; P < .001) (Table 2).

    Functional Health Literacy and HRQoL

    The patients with inadequate FHL scored lower on EQ-VAS than the patients with sufficient FHL (73 [SD, 19.1] vs 78 [SD, 17.4]; P = .003). The patients in the inadequate FHL group scored also significantly lower on physical function (72 [SD, 22.7] vs 81 [SD, 21.9]; P = .002), bodily pain (51 [SD, 28.7] vs 61 [SD, 27.0]; P = .001), general health (68 [SD, 25.7] vs 75 [SD, 22.4]; P = 001), vitality (50 [SD, 26.7] vs 62 [SD, 25.4]; P < .001), mental health (65 [SD, 25.4] vs 77 [SD, 21.2]; P < .002), and the physical component summary (41 [SD, 11.2] vs 45 [SD, 10.1]; P = .004) than the patients with sufficient FHL. In the comparison between the problematic and sufficient FHL groups, the patients in the problematic FHL group scored significantly lower on physical function (75 [SD, 23.8] vs 81 [SD, 21.9]; P = .003), vitality (56 [SD, 23.5] vs 62 [SD, 25.4]; P = .001), social functioning (81 [SD, 21.8] vs 84 [SD, 23.3]; P = .004), mental health (73 [SD, 21.2] vs 77 [SD, 21.2]; P < .001), and the mental component summary (47 [SD, 12.4] vs 49 [SD, 11.9]; P = .003). When comparing the inadequate and problematic FHL groups, mental health was the only subscore in which the patients in the inadequate FHL group scored significantly lower (65 [SD, 25.4] vs 72 [SD, 21.2]; P = .01) (Table 3). There were no differences between the groups in health care contacts (Table 4).

    Discussion

    To our knowledge, this is the first study that has examined whether there is any association between postoperative recovery and functional health literacy in patients undergoing day surgery. We found that patients with inadequate FHL experienced a poor recovery; that is, they reported higher scores in SwQoR on postoperative day 14 compared with patients with sufficient FHL. Patients with problematic FHL also experienced a poor recovery; however, their scores (22.9) were just above the limit for poor recovery (>21).21 It has been reported that the quality of recovery is heavily influenced by the patient’s personality traits,31 preparedness, coping strategies, knowledge regarding the normal recovery trajectory, and sense of security.32-34 Our results suggest that functional health literacy can now also be included as an influencing factor for the quality of postoperative recovery. Low health literacy levels have, among other factors, been shown to be associated with poorer health-related knowledge and comprehension, including the ability to read and understand perioperative instructions,16 medication labels, and health messages6—skills that are also necessary for patients undergoing day surgery. We agree with the statement of Wright et al,12 which is also relevant for patients undergoing day surgery, that surgical patients with low health literacy levels need extra time and resources before discharge for information and instruction regarding wound care and dietary changes, arranging home care needs, and managing anxiety regarding self-care.

    In our study we also found that an inadequate or problematic level of FHL was associated with lower self-rated QoL when measuring HRQoL with EQ-VAS and SF-36. This finding is in line with previous studies.11,35 Low FHL has also been reported to have an association with older age9,10,15 and sex.10,14 However, in our study we found no association between low FHL and sex or age. Yet, the mean age in our study was low at 47 to 49 years. Neither were there any associations found between low FHL and the type of anesthesia or surgery, or ASA classification.

    Concerning the number of health care contacts, low FHL does not seem to have an effect, irrespective of the type of health care contact. Our results are confirmed by Jessup et al15 who did not find any association between low health literacy levels and a greater use of hospital services, as well as Wright et al,12 who did not find any association with rates of emergency department visits or hospital readmissions. However, our results, as well as those of Jessup et al15 and Wright et al,12 contrast with earlier studies that report that lower health literacy levels were associated with a greater use of emergency care and hospitalization.6,7,10,13 Yet, the difference could depend on the age of the included study population or the fact that our study, and that of Jessup et al,15 were performed more recently.

    In this study, one of the inclusion criteria was that the participants should have access to a smartphone, because this study was a part of a multicenter randomized clinical trial testing the effect of an electronically assessed postoperative recovery follow-up (RAPP) using a smartphone. Earlier research from the United States has reported that patients with low FHL are less likely to own smartphones or to access and use the internet, particularly for health-related purposes.36 If we had also included those without access to smartphones, the proportion of persons with low FHL might perhaps have been even greater. Still, smartphones are owned by most Swedish people.37

    It is important to consider health literacy as a concept when developing an instrument. In this study the patients reported their postoperative recovery using SwQoR. This instrument has been developed through several steps using quantitative and qualitative methods for evaluating the instrument (by patients and health personnel).38 Through several steps, the researchers have considered plain language, the direction of the scale,39 and the wording of the items.40 Various revisions have been made, and this process has hopefully successfully developed SwQoR to be easily understood by all patients.

    To our knowledge, there are no large studies on health literacy in a Swedish population for comparison. Compared with a study on patients undergoing elective surgical procedures in the Netherlands,8 our study had a lower proportion of participants with low health literacy levels. However, compared with the study of Wright et al12 on patients undergoing major abdominal surgery in the United States, we had the same proportion of patients with inadequate or problematic health literacy. There are earlier studies showing that the frequency of limited health literacy differs depending on which instrument is used to measure health literacy levels.41,42 Consequently, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

    Limitations

    We recognize some possible methodological limitations in our study. First, we do not know if the patients experienced any generalized anxiety disorder or depression preoperatively. On the other hand, there was an association between low preoperative mental health, measured by SF-36, and inadequate FHL. Thereby, there is a risk of false significant findings for those 2 items in SwQoR in measuring depression and anxiety. Still, there are significant associations between poor overall SwQoR and inadequate health literacy.

    Second, we have no data on the participants’ education level or socioeconomic status. As a result, we do not know whether those who did not complete the Swedish FHL questionnaire are people with lower levels of education or socioeconomic status and possibly low FHL. This might have resulted in the proportion of patients with sufficient FHL being higher than in the total population. Hence, earlier research has shown an association between low health literacy levels and low socioeconomic status.43,44 Third, one of our inclusion criteria was the ability to understand the Swedish language in speech and writing. This inclusion criterion excluded, for example, illiterate people and most refugees. In a study by Wångdahl et al,13 60% of the refugees in Sweden had inadequate FHL; this is in contrast to our study in which 54 participants (7.7%) had inadequate FHL. There is a challenge to provide health care on equal terms to vulnerable groups, and there is a need of further research.

    Conclusions

    Inadequate FHL in patients undergoing day surgery was associated with poorer postoperative recovery and lower HRQoL. Health literacy is a relevant factor to consider for optimizing the postoperative recovery in patients undergoing day surgery.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: February 8, 2018.

    Corresponding Author: Maria Hälleberg Nyman, PhD, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden (maria.halleberg-nyman@oru.se).

    Published Online: April 25, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0672

    Open Access: This article is published under the JN-OA license and is free to read on the day of publication.

    Author Contributions: Dr Nilsson had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Nilsson, Dahlberg, Jaensson.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hälleberg Nyman, Nilsson, Jaensson.

    Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Hälleberg Nyman, Nilsson.

    Obtained funding: Nilsson.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Nilsson, Dahlberg, Jaensson.

    Supervision: Nilsson.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Nilsson and the Örebro University Enterprise AB hold shares in RAPP-AB. No other disclosures are reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was founded by grant 2013–4765 from FORTE (the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Health Care) and grant 2015–02273 from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Contributions: We thank all of the patients included in this study and the research nurses Maria Ståhlkrantz, Länssjukhuset Ryhov, Annelie Nilsson,Örebro University Hospital, Mikaela Breistrand, RN, Mora Hospital, and Anna Tonvik, RN, Örebro University Hospital, for their assistance in the data collection. They were not compensated for their contributions.

    References
    1.
    Toftgaard  C.  ‘Presidential’: day surgery development.  Ambul Surg. 2009;15(1):4p-4p. http://www.iaas-med.com/files/Journal/15/15_1/Toftgaard.pdfGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Correa  R, Menezes  RB, Wong  J, Yogendran  S, Jenkins  K, Chung  F.  Compliance with postoperative instructions: a telephone survey of 750 day surgery patients.  Anaesthesia. 2001;56(5):481-484.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Mitchell  M.  Home recovery following day surgery: a patient perspective.  J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(3-4):415-427.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Koster  ES, Schmidt  A, Philbert  D, van de Garde  EMW, Bouvy  ML.  Health literacy of patients admitted for elective surgery.  Z Gesundh Wiss. 2017;25(2):181-186.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Nutbeam  D.  The evolving concept of health literacy.  Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(12):2072-2078.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Berkman  ND, Sheridan  SL, Donahue  KE, Halpern  DJ, Crotty  K.  Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97-107.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Mitchell  SE, Sadikova  E, Jack  BW, Paasche-Orlow  MK.  Health literacy and 30-day postdischarge hospital utilization.  J Health Commun. 2012;17(suppl 3):325-338.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Koster  ES, Philbert  D, Bouvy  ML.  Health literacy among pharmacy visitors in the Netherlands.  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(7):716-721.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Cox  SR, Liebl  MG, McComb  MN,  et al.  Association between health literacy and 30-day healthcare use after hospital discharge in the heart failure population.  Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(4):754-758.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Javadzade  SH, Sharifirad  G, Radjati  F, Mostafavi  F, Reisi  M, Hasanzade  A.  Relationship between health literacy, health status, and healthy behaviors among older adults in Isfahan, Iran.  J Educ Health Promot. 2012;1:31.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Jayasinghe  UW, Harris  MF, Parker  SM,  et al; Preventive Evidence into Practice (PEP) Partnership Group.  The impact of health literacy and life style risk factors on health-related quality of life of Australian patients.  Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:68.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Wright  JP, Edwards  GC, Goggins  K,  et al.  Association of health literacy with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.  JAMA Surg. 2017;153(2):137-142.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Wångdahl  J, Lytsy  P, Mårtensson  L, Westerling  R.  Health literacy among refugees in Sweden—a cross-sectional study.  BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1030.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Clouston  SAP, Manganello  JA, Richards  M.  A life course approach to health literacy: the role of gender, educational attainment and lifetime cognitive capability.  Age Ageing. 2017;46(3):493-499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15.
    Jessup  RL, Osborne  RH, Beauchamp  A, Bourne  A, Buchbinder  R.  Health literacy of recently hospitalised patients: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ).  BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):52.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Chew  LD, Bradley  KA, Flum  DR, Cornia  PB, Koepsell  TD.  The impact of low health literacy on surgical practice.  Am J Surg. 2004;188(3):250-253.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Zite  NB, Wallace  LS.  Use of a low-literacy informed consent form to improve women’s understanding of tubal sterilization: a randomized controlled trial.  Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1160-1166.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Nilsson  U, Jaensson  M, Dahlberg  K,  et al.  RAPP, a systematic e-assessment of postoperative recovery in patients undergoing day surgery: study protocol for a mixed-methods study design including a multicentre, two-group, parallel, single-blind randomised controlled trial and qualitative interview studies.  BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009901.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Dahlberg  K, Philipsson  A, Hagberg  L, Jaensson  M, Hälleberg-Nyman  M, Nilsson  U.  Cost-effectiveness of a systematic e-assessed follow-up of postoperative recovery after day surgery: a multicentre randomized trial.  Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(5):1039-1046.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Wångdahl  JM, Mårtensson  LI.  Measuring health literacy—the Swedish Functional Health Literacy scale.  Scand J Caring Sci. 2015;29(1):165-172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Jaensson  M, Dahlberg  K, Eriksson  M, Nilsson  U.  Evaluation of postoperative recovery in day surgery patients using a mobile phone application: a multicentre randomized trial.  Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(5):1030-1038.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Nilsson  U, Dahlberg  K, Jaensson  M.  The Swedish web version of the quality of recovery scale adapted for use in a mobile app: prospective psychometric evaluation study.  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(12):e188.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Dolan  P.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.  Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-1108.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    EuroQol Group.  EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.  Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Sullivan  M, Karlsson  J, Ware  JE  Jr.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey—I. evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden.  Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1349-1358.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Persson  LO, Karlsson  J, Bengtsson  C, Steen  B, Sullivan  M.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey II. evaluation of clinical validity: results from population studies of elderly and women in Gothenborg.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1095-1103.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Sullivan  M, Karlsson  J.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1105-1113.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Myles  PS, Weitkamp  B, Jones  K, Melick  J, Hensen  S.  Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40.  Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(1):11-15.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Stark  PA, Myles  PS, Burke  JA.  Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15.  Anesthesiology. 2013;118(6):1332-1340.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Gornall  BF, Myles  PS, Smith  CL,  et al.  Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: a quantitative systematic review.  Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(2):161-169.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Nilsson  U, Berg  K, Unosson  M, Brudin  L, Idvall  E.  Relation between personality and quality of postoperative recovery in day surgery patients.  Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26(8):671-675.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Berg  K, Arestedt  K, Kjellgren  K.  Postoperative recovery from the perspective of day surgery patients: a phenomenographic study.  Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(12):1630-1638.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Bowyer  A, Royse  C.  The importance of postoperative quality of recovery: influences, assessment, and clinical and prognostic implications.  Can J Anaesth. 2016;63(2):176-183.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Allvin  R, Berg  K, Idvall  E, Nilsson  U.  Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis.  J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(5):552-558.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Wang  C, Kane  RL, Xu  D, Meng  Q.  Health literacy as a moderator of health-related quality of life responses to chronic disease among Chinese rural women.  BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:34.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Bailey  SC, O’Conor  R, Bojarski  EA,  et al.  Literacy disparities in patient access and health-related use of internet and mobile technologies.  Health Expect. 2015;18(6):3079-3087.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Davidsson  P, Finndahl  O.  Svenskarna och internet 2016: undersökning om svenskarnas internetvanor. Stockholm, Sweden: IIS, Internetstiftelsen i Sverige; 2016.
    38.
    Jaensson  M, Dahlberg  K, Eriksson  M, Grönlund  Å, Nilsson  U.  The Development of the Recovery Assessments by Phone Points (RAPP): a mobile phone app for postoperative recovery monitoring and assessment.  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(3):e86.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Dahlberg  K, Jaensson  M, Eriksson  M, Nilsson  U.  Evaluation of the Swedish Web-Version of Quality of Recovery (SwQoR): secondary step in the development of a mobile phone app to measure postoperative recovery.  JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(3):e192.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Jaensson  M, Nilsson  U.  Impact of changing positively worded items to negatively worded items in the Swedish web-version of the Quality of Recovery (SwQoR) questionnaire.  J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(3):502-507.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Sahm  LJ, Wolf  MS, Curtis  LM, McCarthy  S.  Prevalence of limited health literacy among Irish adults.  J Health Commun. 2012;17(suppl 3):100-108.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Chew  LD, Griffin  JM, Partin  MR,  et al.  Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population.  J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561-566.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Wu  Y, Wang  L, Cai  Z, Bao  L, Ai  P, Ai  Z.  Prevalence and risk factors of low health literacy: a community-based study in Shanghai, China.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(6):E628.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Berens  EM, Vogt  D, Messer  M, Hurrelmann  K, Schaeffer  D.  Health literacy among different age groups in Germany: results of a cross-sectional survey.  BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1151.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×