Review
Exploring the value of audiotapes for health literacy: a systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.07.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of audiotapes as a health information exchange intervention, specifically looking for use with the “hard-to-reach” population.

Methods:

Examined electronic databases and journals for articles that evaluated potential of audiotapes as an educational tool within diverse populations. The systematic review included randomized controlled trials, surveys and exploratory articles. Primary outcome variables analyzed were knowledge and recall, behavioral change, anxiety, self-care, and satisfaction.

Results:

Audiotapes were used to record consultations and health-related information in specific health situations. No studies were found that targeted the needs of the “hard-to-reach” population. With the exception of positive patient satisfaction, the benefits of audio taped messages remain unclear.

Practice implications:

If even the average person is compromised in the context of information exchange, populations with communication barriers are at even greater risk. Research needs to be conducted, aimed at determining whether audiotapes enhance communication between the “hard-to-reach” population and health professionals.

Introduction

Information is of critical importance in helping people make informed health decisions. These decisions can relate to matters such as incorporating health behaviors into a lifestyle or making a decision about their own health care. However, some people may find it difficult to understand and remember information due to communication barriers. Hogbin and Fallowfield [1] have identified several reasons for communication barriers causing patient dissatisfaction with the information received; these include time constraints of health professionals; health professionals’ poor communication skills; or, patients’ incapacity to understand, whether due to a mental, physical or cognitive impairment. In the past 15 years, there has been increased interest in literacy as a barrier to patients’ understanding. Literacy affects the ability of people to use written information to function in society, to achieve goals and to develop their knowledge and potential. Research has shown that patients with low-literacy skills are generally less healthy [2], [4], [5]. Agencies such as Health Canada have now included literacy among the determinants of health [3]. Recent concern has also begun to emerge about a larger concept of “health literacy” which has been defined by the US Department of Health and Human Services as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions [2].

Two studies by The Centre for Literacy of Quebec [2] set out to identify the communication needs of low-literate patients in a major urban hospital in Montreal. They found that patients identified as being “hard-to-reach” by health care professionals might seem to have literacy problems, but on closer examination, their difficulties could also have been caused by learning, physical or cognitive disabilities, or by language or cultural barriers, as well as by low education [2]. These barriers can interfere with communication and put these patients at risk [2].

Since nurses and other health professionals rely heavily on print to communicate health-related information, the literacy level of their clientele becomes important. Current literature on health literacy suggests that written information alone may not always meet the needs of patients in general, and can exclude certain patient groups; to reach some of these groups, the literature recommends the use of alternative media in health education such as audiotapes, videotapes, computer technology, pictograms and plain language.

This review originated as one of a series that examined these recommended interventions. The authors originally set out to examine the literature on the use of audiotapes for health education directed at the “hard-to-reach” populations that had been identified by The Centre for Literacy of Quebec [2]; however, the empirical literature did not address any of these groups specifically. Therefore, this systematic review examines the use of audiotape recording of health-related information for patients and family members, with the intention of identifying strategies that might be adapted for “hard-to-reach” populations. Previous literature reviews [6], [7], [8] examining the use of audiotapes as an educational intervention focused mainly on audio-recordings of consultations with oncology patients. This review has broadened the scope to include all aspects of health education in order to identify common outcome criteria (i.e. knowledge, compliance, anxiety, self-care, and satisfaction) to provide possible new insight into patient education. The use of audiotapes may well provide a suitable alternative learning tool for the “hard-to-reach” population. However, since “hard-to-reach” patients were systematically excluded from the majority of the studies examined in this review, the claim cannot currently be substantiated. Further research is required.

Section snippets

Method

A computer search was done in Medline (1966 to May week 2, 2003); CINAHL (1982 to May week 3, 2003); ERIC (1966 to April 2003); Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2003); and Dissertation Abstracts (1861 to week 2, 2003), using terms applied to a hearing medium such as ‘audiotape’, ‘audio recording’, ‘tape recording’, and ‘cassette,’ along with educational terms such as ‘patient education’ and ‘health education’. Additional articles were identified from bibliographies and reference lists, as well as by

Results

The initial search resulted in 283 articles, of which 35 were considered relevant. The majority of the articles were irrelevant to this study because they dealt with tape recordings for the purpose of analyzing a health professional's interaction with patients. Of the 35 articles chosen, 4 were descriptive articles on the efficacy of audiotapes [10], [11], [12], [13], and 3 were literature reviews on recording oncology consultations [6], [7], [8]. The remaining 28 articles [1], [14], [15], [16]

Advantage of the intervention

This systematic review demonstrates that using tape recordings to educate patients in a variety of health situations, from cancer diagnosis to lower extremity reconstruction, has several potential advantages. The patient can listen to the tape as many times as he/she wants or needs to. The patient can share the information tape with family [1], [15], [16], [18], [19], [21], [22], [24], [25], [26], [27], [31], [33], [37], [38], [39], thereby decreasing misunderstandings and forgotten details [1]

Intervention

As with all other educational interventions, audiotapes have their limitations. Some of the information provided by audiotapes was found to be too general by patients and not personalized enough [1]. The need for a tape recorder to listen to the tape is a possible limitation to this intervention, although few people found it to be a problem [39]. Physicians who oppose recording consultations find that the taping inhibits open discussion [8], and may expose them to malpractice litigations [16],

Discussion

No clear conclusions can be established about using audiotapes as an educational intervention. It would be an immense step forward in health education to be able to conclude that a tape recording, either of a consultation or of medical information, reduces patient anxiety, for example. But that is not what this systematic review has determined. While some studies show that audiotapes produce a remarkable reduction in anxiety level of patients [20], [35], perhaps through attained knowledge,

Conclusion and practice implications

In terms of the initial purpose of this review, the literature is limited on the use of audiotapes with patients who have specific barriers to communication. No studies were found which analyzed the effects of recorded information on any specific “hard-to-reach” patient subgroup. Audiotape and information aid research needs to move in the direction of specifically addressing the needs of low literacy patients and other “hard-to-reach” or disadvantaged groups.

It is important to recognize that

References (41)

  • R. Conerly

    Communicating cancer control messages to low-literate and diverse audiences

    J. Psychosoc. Oncol.

    (2001)
  • Perrin, B. How does literacy affect the health of Canadians? A profile paper. Health Canada, Health Promotion and...
  • J.T. Scott et al.

    Giving tape recordings or written summaries of consultations to people with cancer: a systematic review

    Health Expect.

    (2001)
  • J. Hearn et al.

    Systematic reviews

    Palliat Med

    (1999)
  • C.M. LeMay

    How we prep patients for the ICU

    RN

    (May 1986)
  • C.L. Oakley

    Tape recordings in medical education

    Cal. Med.

    (1966)
  • E. Rosenbaum et al.

    Achieving open communication with cancer patients through audio and videotapes

    J. Psychosoc. Oncol.

    (1986)
  • G. Rylance

    Should audio recordings of outpatient consultations be presented to patients?

    Arch. Dis. Child.

    (1992)
  • R.G. Nathan et al.

    Patient interest in receiving audiotapes of information presented by their physicians. A survey of patients awaiting treatment in university and private practice settings

    Arch. Fam. Med.

    (1994)
  • G.A. Hagopian

    The effects of informational audiotapes on knowledge and self-care behaviors of patients undergoing radiation therapy

    Arch. Fam. Med.

    (1996)
  • Cited by (41)

    • Measuring attributes of health literate health care organizations from the patients’ perspective: Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess health literacy-sensitive communication (HL-COM)

      2017, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen
      Citation Excerpt :

      There are many techniques to address patients’ health literacy and to enhance patients’ understanding [43–49]. However, more research is needed to examine the benefits of specific techniques for persons with low health literacy or intellectual disabilities [50,51]. Techniques can be trained in communication skills training; specific curricula exist for physicians working in oncology that were shown to be effective [52–54].

    • Reprint of: Health literacy in Canada and the ophthalmology patient

      2015, Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Rather, it is to provide suggested methods that have been evaluated in literacy studies and are reasonable for application in a busy clinical practice. Although a variety of interventions and combinations of interventions have been studied including audiotapes,40 webbased media,41 internet forums,42 talking touchscreens,43 and even “tweeting”,5 systematic reviews of the literature have failed to expose the ideal intervention.13,14,44 There is however, significant evidence including a Cochrane Review of the literature from 1990 to 2005, that supports the use of both verbal and written health information when communicating about care issues with patients on discharge home from hospital.45

    • Just telling and selling: Current limitations in the use of digital media in public health A scoping review.

      2014, Public Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      Fig. 1 shows the major health topics that were targeted in the reviews. Details and review examples are shown in Table S3.1,3,7,9,11,14,15,21,23,26,55–85 The largest proportion of studies (23.5%) was concerned with general themes relating to health promotion or health education, or to health-related knowledge translation, health literacy or information seeking.

    • Providing recording of clinical consultation to patients - A highly valued but underutilized intervention: A scoping review

      2014, Patient Education and Counseling
      Citation Excerpt :

      We wanted to understand how the studies had chosen to assess their impact. Some reviews examined specific outcomes such as the value of audio-recordings for health literacy [13], recall of medical advice [14], and participant recruitment rates and strategies [15]. In contrast, a recent review [16] categorized the outcome measures used by the studies into three major groups: (1) information access, use and understanding (e.g. information recall); (2) experience of health care (e.g. satisfaction); (3) health and well-being (e.g. psychological health status).

    • Development and validation of the high blood pressure-focused health literacy scale

      2012, Patient Education and Counseling
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, only a small number of health literacy-focused intervention studies have been reported in the recent literature [2–4]. Previous intervention studies involving individuals with low health literacy have predominantly focused on adjustment of reading levels in written educational materials or incorporating the use of video, audiotapes, or other technology [4–6]. Very few clinicians and researchers have attempted to directly influence health literacy levels as a means of improving the ability to manage chronic diseases [7].

    • Health literacy in Canada and the ophthalmology patient

      2012, Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Rather, it is to provide suggested methods that have been evaluated in literacy studies and are reasonable for application in a busy clinical practice. Although a variety of interventions and combinations of interventions have been studied including audiotapes,40 web-based media,41 internet forums,42 talking touchscreens,43 and even “tweeting”,5 systematic reviews of the literature have failed to expose the ideal intervention.13,14,44 There is however, significant evidence including a Cochrane Review of the literature from 1990 to 2005, that supports the use of both verbal and written health information when communicating about care issues with patients on discharge home from hospital.45

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +1 514 934 1934x44188; fax: +1 514 934 8357.

    2

    Tel.: +1 514 931 8731x1415; fax: +1 514 931 5181.

    View full text