We estimated health status by low health literacy and limited-English proficiency alone and in combination for Latinos, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Whites in a population-based sample: 48,427 adults from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey, including 3,715 with limited-English proficiency, were studied. Multivariate logistic models examined self-reported health by health literacy and English proficiency in the full sample and racial/ethnic subgroups. Overall, 44.9% with limited-English proficiency reported low health literacy versus 13.8% of English speakers. Among the limited-English proficient, Chinese respondents had the highest prevalence of low health literacy (68.3%), followed by Latinos (45.3%), Koreans (35.6%), Vietnamese (29.7%), and Whites (18.8%). In the full sample, respondents with both limited-English proficiency/low health literacy reported the highest prevalence of poor health (45.1%), followed by limited-English proficiency-only (41.1%), low health literacy-only (22.2%), and neither (13.8%), a hierarchy that remained significant in multivariate models. However, sub-analyses revealed limited-English proficient Latinos, Vietnamese, and Whites had equal or greater odds of poor health compared with low health literate/limited-English proficient respondents. Individuals with both limited-English proficiency and low health literacy are at high risk for poor health. Limited-English proficiency may carry greater health risk than low health literacy, though important racial/ethnic variations exist.

BACKGROUND: Limited English proficiency (LEP) may contribute to mental health care disparities, yet empirical data are limited. OBJECTIVE:To quantify the language barriers to mental health care by race/ethnicity using a direct measure of LEP is the objective of the study. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of the 2001 California Health Interview Survey is the study's design. PARTICIPANTS:Adults aged 18 to 64 who provided language data (n=41,984) were the participants of the study.MEASUREMENT: Participants were categorized into three groups by self-reported English proficiency and language spoken at home: (1) English-speaking only, (2) Bilingual, and (3) Non-English speaking. Mental health treatment was measured by self-reported use of mental health services by those reporting a mental health need.RESULTS: Non-English speaking individuals had lower odds of receiving needed services (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48) than those who only spoke English, when other factors were controlled. The relationship was even more dramatic within racial/ethnic groups: non-English speaking Asian/PIs (OR=0.15; 95% CI: 0.30-0.81) and nonEnglish speaking Latinos (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09-0.39) had significantly lower odds of receiving services compared to Asian/PIs and Latinos who spoke only English.CONCLUSIONS: LEP is associated with lower use of mental health care. Since LEP is concentrated among Asian/PIs and Latinos, it appears to contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in mental health care. Heightened attention to LEP is warranted in both mental health practice and policy.

BACKGROUND: Differences in health literacy levels by race and education are widely hypothesized to contribute to health disparities, but there is little direct evidence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which low health literacy exacerbates differences between racial and socioeconomic groups in terms of health status and receipt of vaccinations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS (OR PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS): Three thousand two hundred and sixty noninstitutionalized elderly persons enrolling in a Medicare managed care plan in 1997 in Cleveland, OH; Houston, TX; South Florida; and Tampa, FL. MEASUREMENTS: Dependent variables were physical health SF‐12 score, mental health SF‐12 score, self‐reported health status, receipt of influenza vaccine, and receipt of pneumococcal vaccine. Independent variables included health literacy, educational attainment, race, income, age, sex, chronic health conditions, and smoking status. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic and health‐related variables, individuals without a high school education had worse physical and mental health and worse self‐reported health status than those with a high school degree. Accounting for health literacy reduced these differences by 22% to 41%. Black individuals had worse self‐reported health status and lower influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates. Accounting for health literacy reduced the observed difference in self‐reported health by 25% but did not affect differences in vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that health literacy explained a small to moderate fraction of the differences in health status and, to a lesser degree, receipt of vaccinations that would normally be attributed to educational attainment and/or race if literacy was not considered.

As we write our editorial for a health literacy special issue in the midst of the international COVID-19 crisis, we take this opportunity to highlight the importance of individual, community, and population health literacy. We are not only in a "pandemic" but also an "infodemic". Health literacy is more important than ever in the face of these global health threats, which have impacted outcomes across the levels of the socio-ecological model (SEM), including individual health behaviors, family relationships, organizational behavior, state policy-making, national mortality statistics, and the international economy in the span of weeks. Our special issue sought to pull together interdisciplinary threads guided by two principles. The first was defining health literacy as essential skills and situational resources needed for people to find, understand, evaluate, communicate, and use information and services in a variety of forms across various settings throughout their life course to promote health and wellbeing. The second was the idea that enhancing health literacy in populations and systems is critical to achieving health equity. In this time of public health need across traditional borders, the inter-sectoral and international perspectives of special issue articles are more urgent than ever. A greater understanding, appreciation, and application of health literacy can support policy action on multiple levels to address major public health challenges. Health literacy should be built deliberately as a population-level resource and community asset. We have summarized the set of articles in this special issue across the levels of the SEM, hoping their thoughtful considerations and interesting findings will help to support global health and wellness and inspire future research, policy, and practice in this global public health emergency and beyond.As we write this special issue editorial in the midst of the global health threat of COVID-19, individual, community, and population health literacy are more important than ever [3][4][5][6][7]. Personal health behaviors, family relationships, organizational actions, state policy, national mortality statistics, and the international economy have changed in the span of weeks because of decision-making influenced by, and influencing, health literacy. Critical health literacy and digital health literacy are urgently needed by both the citizenry and policy makers to synthesize, analyze, and appraise the vast amount of urgent, complex, and even conflicting information from virologists, epidemiologists, data modelers, doctors, nurses, health departments, and the media [3,[5][6][7]. Health literacy capacities allow us to be well-informed about risks, resources, and recommendations and, ideally, to act in solidarity-based behaviors to achieve public health [3,4,7]. It is increasingly clear that social responsibility and solidarity may be key outcomes of health literacy, helping to combat decisions and policies that go against current COVID-19 evidence and best practice public health...

The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by rapidly emerging evidence, changing guidance, and misinformation, which present new challenges for health literacy (HL) and digital health literacy (DHL) skills. This study explored whether COVID-19-related information access, attitudes, and behaviors were associated with health literacy and digital health literacy among college students in the United States. Self-reported measures of health literacy, along with items on pandemic-related attitudes, behaviors, information sources, and social networks, were collected online using a managed research panel. In July 2020, 256 responses were collected, which mirrored the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. colleges. Only 49% reported adequate HL, and 57% found DHL tasks easy overall. DHL did not vary by HL level. In multivariable models, both HL and DHL were independently associated with overall compliance with basic preventive practices. Higher DHL, but not HL, was significantly associated with greater willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the belief that acquiring the disease would negatively impact their life. On average, respondents discussed health with 4–5 people, which did not vary by HL or DHL measures. The usage of online information sources varied by HL and DHL. The study findings can inform future student-focused interventions, including identifying the distinct roles of HL and DHL in pandemic information access, attitudes, and behaviors.

BACKGROUND:In several recent studies, the importance of education and race in explaining health-related disparities has diminished when literacy was considered. This relationship has not been tested in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults.

IntroductionAlthough glycemic control is known to reduce complications associated with diabetes, it is an elusive goal for many patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with sustained poor glycemic control, some glycemic variability, and wide glycemic variability among diabetes patients over 3 years.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted among 2,970 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] >9%) who were enrolled in a health plan in Hawaii in 2006. We conducted multivariable logistic regressions to examine factors related to sustained poor control, some glycemic variability, and wide glycemic variability during the next 3 years. Independent variables evaluated as possible predictors were age, sex, type of insurance coverage, morbidity, diabetes duration, history of cardiovascular disease, and number of medications.ResultsLonger duration of diabetes, being under age 35, and taking 15 or more medications were significantly associated with sustained poor glycemic control. Preferred provider organization and Medicare (vs health maintenance organization) enrollees and patients with high morbidity were less likely to have sustained poor glycemic control. Wide glycemic variability was significantly related to being younger than age 50, longer duration of diabetes, having coronary artery disease, and taking 5 to 9 medications per year.ConclusionResults indicate that duration of diabetes, age, number of medications, morbidity, and type of insurance coverage are risk factors for sustained poor glycemic control. Patients with these characteristics may need additional therapies and targeted interventions to improve glycemic control. Patients younger than age 50 and those with a history of coronary heart disease should be warned of the health risks of wide glycemic variability.

No abstract