IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i19-20p3472-3481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health literacy of the baby boomer generation and the implications for nursing

Author

Listed:
  • Peta Harbour
  • Laurie Grealish

Abstract

Aims and objectives To investigate the health literacy of the baby boomer generation and what this means for nursing care. Background Nurses are encouraged to tailor information and education to the individual's level of understanding or health literacy but there may be generational differences in health literacy due to historical, social, and economic contexts. The baby boomer generation, people born between 1946 and 1966, are projected to be high users of health services as they age, therefore nurses’ understanding of their health literacy characteristics is important. Design Integrative literature review. Methods Database and manual searching for articles occurred in July 2017. Four articles met the criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated, and methodological‐quality was assessed. Results Three categories of relevance emerged from the analysis of study findings: social demographics may predict health literacy, navigation of the health care system is challenging with low health literacy, and mechanisms to translate information into action remain unclear. Conclusions Although there is limited evidence to guide practice in regard to health literacy for the baby boomer generation, the emergence of the internet may confound nursing assessment of literacy: people from the baby boomer generation may appear to have higher literacy than they actually possess. Relevance to clinical practice Sociodemographic information may be used for initial screening for health literacy. Creative questions are recommended to overcome possible stigma associated with individual awareness of low literacy. The mechanisms for translating information into action require further investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Peta Harbour & Laurie Grealish, 2018. "Health literacy of the baby boomer generation and the implications for nursing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3472-3481, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:19-20:p:3472-3481
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14549
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14549?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindsay C. Kobayashi & Jane Wardle & Michael S. Wolf & Christian von Wagner, 2016. "Aging and Functional Health Literacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Gerontological Society of America, vol. 71(3), pages 445-457.
    2. Nutbeam, Don, 2008. "The evolving concept of health literacy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2072-2078, December.
    3. Noble, Stephanie M. & Schewe, Charles D. & Kuhr, Michelle, 2004. "Preferences in health care service and treatment: A generational perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1033-1041, September.
    4. Rhiannon Pilkington & Anne W Taylor & Graeme Hugo & Gary Wittert, 2014. "Are Baby Boomers Healthier than Generation X? A Profile of Australia’s Working Generations Using National Health Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-7, March.
    5. Commission, Productivity, 2011. "Caring for older Australians," Inquiry Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 53.
    6. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Angela Schnelli & Julian Hirt & Adelheid Zeller, 2021. "Persons with dementia as internet users: what are their needs? A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5-6), pages 849-860, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peltzer, Samia & Hellstern, Marc & Genske, Anna & Jünger, Saskia & Woopen, Christiane & Albus, Christian, 2020. "Health literacy in persons at risk of and patients with coronary heart disease: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    5. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    6. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Nicola Andreij Rieg & Birgitta Gatersleben & Ian Christie, 2021. "Organizational Change Management for Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Quantitative Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Johannes Dahlke & Kristina Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Thomas Berger & Andreas Pyka & Bernd Ebersberger, 2020. "Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze? Machine Learning (ML) In and For Agent-Based Modelling (ABM)," Papers 2003.11985, arXiv.org.
    9. Vuong, Quan-Hoang & Huyen, Nguyen Thanh Thanh & Pham, Thanh-Hang & Phuong, Luong Anh & Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2020. "Mapping the intellectual and conceptual structure of research on gender issues in the family business: A bibliometric review," OSF Preprints jgnrw, Center for Open Science.
    10. Kuangguo Zhou & Danmei Xu & Yang Cao & Jue Wang & Yunfan Yang & Mei Huang, 2014. "C-MYC Aberrations as Prognostic Factors in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    11. Allison Hirst & Douglas G Altman, 2012. "Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-9, April.
    12. Lauralyn A McIntyre & David Moher & Dean A Fergusson & Katrina J Sullivan & Shirley H J Mei & Manoj Lalu & John Marshall & Malcolm Mcleod & Gilly Griffin & Jeremy Grimshaw & Alexis Turgeon & Marc T Av, 2016. "Efficacy of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy for Acute Lung Injury in Preclinical Animal Models: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    14. Gill, Amy & Grace, Rebekah & Waniganayake, Manjula & Hadley, Fay, 2020. "Practitioner and foster carer perceptions of the support needs of young parents in and exiting out-of-home care: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    15. Bin Wu & Haixiang Wu & Xiaoyan Liu & Houwen Lin & Jin Li, 2014. "Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab for Ophthalmic Diseases Related to Neovascularisation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-8, July.
    16. Daniele Zago & Maria Eugênia Andrighetto Canozzi & Júlio Otávio Jardim Barcellos, 2020. "Pregnant beef cow’s nutrition and its effects on postnatal weight and carcass quality of their progeny," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Hongxin Huang & Yayuan Zheng & Jianhong Zhu & Jingjing Zhang & Huapu Chen & Xinggui Chen, 2014. "An Updated Meta-Analysis of Fatal Adverse Events Caused by Bevacizumab Therapy in Cancer Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8, March.
    18. Shunsuke Araki & Shin Kato & Fumihiko Namba & Erika Ota, 2018. "Vitamin A to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely low birth weight infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Antonio Fratini & Tecla Bonci & Anthony M J Bull, 2016. "Whole Body Vibration Treatments in Postmenopausal Women Can Improve Bone Mineral Density: Results of a Stimulus Focussed Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Jing Chen & Tao Li & Qilun Liu & Haiyan Jiao & Wenjun Yang & Xiaoxia Liu & Zhenghao Huo, 2014. "Clinical and Prognostic Significance of HIF-1α, PTEN, CD44v6, and Survivin for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:19-20:p:3472-3481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.