RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) impacts people's health and well-being. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), there are no general estimates of the prevalence of low HL. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of low HL among citizens of LAC and identify the tools used to measure it. METHODS: We included observational studies quantifying the prevalence of low HL in people living in LAC. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, LILACS, PsycINFO, Redalyc, SciELO, Web of Science, PQDT, and the reference lists of the included studies in June 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted the selection, extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Meta-analysis of proportions using random effects models was used to summarize the prevalence of low HL estimated. This prevalence was measured in each study using different classification methods: word recognition items, reading and numeracy comprehension items, and self-reported comprehension items. RESULTS: Eighty four studies involving 23,914 participants from 15 countries were included. We identified 23 tools to assess HL, and most of the studies were carried out in health services. The pooled prevalence of low HL were 44.02% (95%CI: 36.12-52.24) for reading and numeracy comprehension items, 50.62% (95%CI: 41.82-59.39) for word recognition items, and 41.73% (95%CI: 31.76-52.43) for self-reported comprehension items. CONCLUSION: Despite the variability in the prevalence of low HL and a diversity of tools, the average of low HL is of concern. Almost half of the participants in the included studies have low HL. Most of the studies targeted users of healthcare services. Further research investigating the prevalence of low HL in the general population and actions focused on health education, communication, and information are necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021250286).
Assuntos
Letramento em Saúde , Letramento em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , América Latina , Região do Caribe , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , PrevalênciaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to compare the effect of alternative levothyroxine administration regimens on thyroid hormone levels and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among adults with hypothyroidism. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP from inception to May/2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We analyzed TSH levels by pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). The FT4 levels and PROs were qualitatively assessed. RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (906 participants) comparing different regimens, as bedtime vs. before breakfast. A total of 12 RCTs were at high risk of bias. Seven RCTs were included in the TSH meta-analysis, where the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were as follows: bedtime vs before breakfast (4 RCTs) 0.69 (-1.67-3.04), I2 = 92%, very low certainty evidence; weekly dose vs before breakfast (2 RCTs) 1.68 (0.94-2.41), I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence; and at breakfast vs before breakfast (1 RCT) 0.65 (-1.11-2.41), very low certainty evidence. The NMA showed no evidence of differences in TSH level with different regimens. CONCLUSION: The evidence is insufficient to determine the most effective levothyroxine administration regimen for hypothyroidism. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42021279375.