Setting and participants
This study was conducted in partnership with the De dwa da dehs nye>s Health Access Centre (DHAC), a comprehensive Indigenous health service which provides primary health care, traditional healing and health promotion programs to Indigenous peoples living in the cities of Hamilton and Brantford, ON, Canada. These two cities are located approximately 40 km apart in southern Ontario on the traditional territories of Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian) and Anishnawbe (Ojibway) peoples. There are two nearby First Nations, Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit. According to the National Household Survey, in 2011, the Indigenous population in the city of Hamilton by ancestry was 15,840, comprising 3.1% of the total population (509,635), and the Indigenous population in the city of Brantford by ancestry was 5440, comprising 5.9% of the total population (91,975) (Statistics Canada 2013). Our research group has recently demonstrated elsewhere that 2011 NHS estimates of Indigenous peoples in southern Ontario cities underestimate the actual population size by a factor of 2–4, so these figures need to be interpreted accordingly.
Indigenous clients of the health service were eligible for the study if they could provide informed consent, were aged 20 years or older, had a history of at least one CVD event (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attack or stroke) or had ≥ 15% risk of CVD over the next 5 years, and were prescribed at least two of the following medication classes: statin, aspirin, ACE inhibitors or beta blockers. Potential participants were identified through a customized search of the clinic electronic medical record system for target study medications and referral from primary health care providers. Clients indicating an interest in volunteer study participation to health service staff not directly involved in the trial were contacted by the study nurse. Family members of participants were invited to sit in on study sessions.
Design
The intervention design is a single arm pre-post trial with multiple measurement points. Factors precluding the use of a randomized, controlled design have been detailed elsewhere (protocol paper) and include the relatively small eligible study population and a high likelihood of contamination between intervention and control groups who are all clients of the DHAC and may also be otherwise networked through the local Indigenous community.
In keeping with benchmark ethical requirements and evidence-based practice in Indigenous health research (Smylie et al. 2012; Leadbeater et al. 2011), the DHAC was comprehensively involved in the proposal development, research study design and implementation, and results analysis, documentation and dissemination. We applied an Indigenous community participatory action research partnership method that had been successfully demonstrated in a previous community-partnered, community-implemented health needs assessment project (Smylie et al. 2011; Firestone et al. 2014). The research team was led by Indigenous people, including the executive director of DHAC who was a project co-investigator and the study nurse who was a DHAC employee. There was a local project research committee comprised of DHAC staff. Indigenous community governance and management of research data and publications was formalized through a signed research, data-sharing and publication agreement. In addition, the study was approved by the St. Michael’s Hospital Research Ethics Board.
This Canadian study is part of a larger international trial involving three additional Indigenous health services in Australia and New Zealand. Pooled study results are to be presented elsewhere. This larger study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001309875; date of registration 18/12/2012).
Intervention
The intervention is described in detail elsewhere (Crengle et al. 2014). Briefly, it consisted of three sequential educational sessions with an Indigenous nurse who had received specific training in health literacy, including Indigenous adult literacy strategies that support the uptake of knowledge and health literacy skills. Educational sessions were scheduled to optimize learning, with the second session planned for 7 days after the first session (with a 1-week grace period) and the third session planned for 28 days after the first session (with a 4-week grace period). At the first session, participants received a customized information booklet designed by the medical and health literacy research team members that was used along with an interactive tablet application to support the educational sessions. The booklet (www.welllivinghouse.com/IHL) contains information about CVD, medication use and the four CVD study medication classes, including scientific and brand names, what the medication does, how to take it, interactions, side effects, contraindications, and lipid and blood pressure targets. The interactive tablet application (Fig. 1) ensured that the nurse covered the CVD medication information in a structured and consistent way and provided interactive opportunities for the participant, including two animations of the pathology that occurs in heart disease and stroke, respectively. The application also produced a participant-specific pill card (Fig. 2). During educational sessions, two and three participants were encouraged by the teaching nurse to come up with questions about their CVD or CVD medications that they would like to ask their doctor or nurse.
Measures
Participant knowledge of CVD medications and their use, including treatment targets, was collected at baseline (T1) and before and after each of the three educational sessions (see Table 1 for summary of study data collection points). The primary study outcome was change in mean participant knowledge of CVD medications between T1 (pre-intervention baseline) and post-educational sessions 1, 2 and 3 for each of the study CVD medication classes (T2, T4 and T6, respectively). Secondary study outcomes focused on changes in health literacy practices by examining: (a) whether or not participants were more likely to read from their pill bottle, pill care, information booklet or own notes after the intervention compared to baseline; (b) changes in the resources used by patients to get information on their CVD post-intervention compared to pre-intervention; (c) whether or not participants had asked questions of their doctor or nurse; and (d) whether or not participants had answered questions for others in their family or community about CVD and CVD medications.
Table 1 Summary of study data collection points Baseline demographic, medical history (including CVD history or CVD risk), medication information, blood pressure and lipid measures were collected at the enrollment session or before the start of the first educational session. Instruments consisting of 9 to 13 class-specific questions to assess knowledge of the four classes of CVD medications and their use were custom developed, integrated into the tablet application, and completed immediately before and after each of the educational sessions for a total of six medication knowledge measurement points.
Participant’s health literacy practices were assessed by the intervention nurse who had been trained to observe and document on the tablet application which supplemental materials were being used (i.e., pill bottle, customized pill card, intervention booklet or own information) during each educational session and whether or not the client was using this information spontaneously or with prompting.
Analyses
Data from the tablet applications were securely transmitted to a server and extracted in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. Analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics (version 22). Descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations were calculated for continuous measures, while counts and percentages were calculated for discrete measures. Participant characteristics included age, gender, baseline CVD disease information (type of diagnosis, number of diagnoses, time from diagnosis), co-morbidities, baseline CVD medication information, and baseline BP and lipid levels for the Brantford and Hamilton sites, with significance testing for difference across these two sites. Mean drug knowledge scores were then calculated for each of the four CVD drug classes at each measurement point, with significance testing for difference between baseline and post-sessions 1, 2 and 3 applying paired t testing. Finally, generalized estimating equation multivariable models with the natural logarithm of medication knowledge score as the dependent (Y) variable were constructed to test whether there was a relative change in medication knowledge score before and after each educational session while controlling for site and baseline diabetes diagnosis.
With respect to health literacy practices, chi-square tests were used to test the association between health literacy practices prior to T1 (before the first education session) and after T6 (end of the third session). We tested for significant differences with respect to participants reading from different sources (pill bottle, pill card, book or notes) and all of these sources during education sessions with prompting and spontaneously. Furthermore, we tested to see if there was an association between the number of participants who reported asking and answering questions at T4 and T6 (post-sessions 2 and 3).