Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 7;20(5):e0321780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321780

Predictive factors for limited health literacy among persons with cirrhosis: A Swedish explorative cross-sectional study

Maria Hjorth 1,2,¤a,*, Anna Forsberg 3,4,¤b
Editor: Isabelle Chemin5
PMCID: PMC12058021  PMID: 40333942

Abstract

Introduction

Fatigue and altered cognitive capacity are common symptoms following cirrhosis. Patients consider information about cirrhosis difficult to understand. Health literacy levels vary among persons with chronic illnesses, which can hamper participation in and adaptation to treatment, potential restrictions and recommendations. Limited health literacy might also lead to decreased autonomy.

Purpose

The aim was to explore predictors of limited health literacy among adults with cirrhosis.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional study explored health literacy among 167 Swedish adults with cirrhosis, 94 men and 73 women with a median age of 65 years using the ‘Newest Vital Sign’ instrument. Predictors of limited health literacy were examined in relation to patient characteristics and cirrhosis disease events. The study is reported following the STROBE guidelines.

Results

The prevalence of limited health literacy was 58%. Low education and covert hepatic encephalopathy were associated with limited health literacy (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Limited health literacy is common among Swedish adults with cirrhosis. Both covert hepatic encephalopathy and low education might be predictors of limited health literacy. Healthcare providers should tailor their patient education based on the patient’s literacy level to facilitate understanding, learning and self-management.

Introduction

Cirrhosis is a collective term for the end-stage of scarred liver tissue, which results from a chronic liver disease [1]. Early symptoms are generally vague, e.g. fatigue [2]. Minimal cognitive changes may occur, sometimes defined as covert hepatic encephalopathy [35]. Covert hepatic encephalopathy may predict serious events with overt hepatic encephalopathy [6]. The advanced cirrhosis symptoms, i.e. ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy or gastro-oesophageal variceal bleeding, are driven by portal hypertension and systemic inflammation. These serious symptoms limit patients’ survival and impair their quality of life [1]. Symptom distress increases the need for medical treatment and self-management support [7,8].

Patients with cirrhosis are expected to participate with healthcare professionals (HCPs) to optimise their health [8]. The patients’ individual level of health literacy has an inevitable impact on their understanding of the disease and ability to participate [9]. Health literacy is defined as personal skills that enable a person to obtain, understand, assess and use information to make decisions and act to promote health [10]. Patients with limited health literacy levels have increased healthcare costs, which are associated with: a greater number of hospitalisations [11]; difficulties communicating with healthcare providers; low knowledge of the disease [9]; poorer adherence to medical recommendations [9,11]; and reduced ability to interpret health information texts [11]. In comparison with persons with other gastrointestinal diseases, e.g. inflammatory bowel disease and gastrointestinal cancer, limited health literacy tends to be more common following cirrhosis [12]. In other European countries, limited health literacy among persons with cirrhosis have been associated with male gender, low education [13], impaired liver function, covert hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, falls and depressive symptoms [14].

Patients experience cirrhosis disease information presented by HCPs or on the internet as complex [13,15]. They also express that collaboration with HCPs is vital. However, they do not always feel involved [16]. Poor understanding of the cirrhosis and lack of self-management skills lead to repeated inpatient care, some of which may be preventable [17,18]. Patients wish to have information presented in a way that facilitates their learning and understanding of the disease [16,19]. Hence HCPs need to be aware of individuals who may be at risk of not acting upon the advice received. Although health literacy has been explored among persons with cirrhosis in other European countries [13,14], it may vary among different nationalities [10]. Therefore, as a baseline measure in a multicentre, randomised controlled study of nurse-led clinics for patients with cirrhosis, health literacy data were collected from a Swedish cohort of adults with cirrhosis [20]. The aim of the present study was to explore predictors of limited health literacy among adults with cirrhosis.

Materials and methods

Design

This explorative, cross-sectional study employed a quantitative approach to search for predictors of limited health literacy among Swedish adults with cirrhosis. The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist provided guidance in reporting the study [21] (S1 Table).

Participants and setting

Six hepatology clinics were involved in patient recruitment in the multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) [20].The clinics, two county hospitals and four university hospitals, were situated in mid and south Sweden. All participants had received regular consultations by hepatologist since the time for cirrhosis diagnosis. Diagnosis of cirrhosis was based on clinical signs, laboratory findings, histology, magnetic resonance imaging, computer tomography, ultrasound and/or transient elastography. Overt hepatic encephalopathy was examined according to the West Haven criteria [3]. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were examined by a hepatologist before recruitment (Table 1). One or two registered nurses per study site were trained and thereafter responsible for patient recruitment, informed consent and data collection.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study participation.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Age 18–85 Persistent overt hepatic encephalopathy
Cirrhosis diagnosis within 24 months Inability to read or communicate in Swedish
Ongoing follow-up by hepatologist Severe comorbidity:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease grade 3–4
Coronary heart disease New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA) classes 3–4
Dementia
Actual advanced cancer
Stroke with sequelae
Severe psychiatric disease
Renal failure requiring dialysis

Data collection

Data were collected at each hepatology clinic from 17th of November 2016–31st of December 2020 as patients entered the above mentioned RCT [20]. The total time for data collection was 30–45 minutes per patient.

Assessing health literacy.

Functional health literacy was measured with the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) generic instrument [22], which comprises six standardised questions about information on a nutrition label. When the patient had studied the nutrition label, the registered nurse asked six questions about its content. The nutrition label was available to the patient and could be referred to during the procedure. The registered nurse recorded each response on a score sheet that contained the correct answer. A correct answer scored one point, resulting in a total score from zero to six. Four correct answers is the cut-off between a possible limited health literacy (score 1–3) and a normal health literacy (score 4–6). Cronbach α for the English version is .76 [22]. The instrument had previously been translated from English to Swedish [23].

Predictive factors.

The predictive factors examined in this study were: patients’ background characteristics and cirrhosis related disease events. During the interview patients were asked about their comorbidities and background characteristics, such as age, gender, level of education and work ability. Information about cirrhosis diagnosis, overt hepatic encephalopathy events, ascites and oesophageal variceal bleeding were collected from medical records. Blood sampling included analyses of the MELD-score [24] and Child Pugh score [25].

Identifying covert hepatic encephalopathy.

The presence of covert hepatic encephalopathy was detected by use of the psychometric encephalopathy score (PHES) [26] and continuous reaction time (CRT) [27]. PHES consists of a five-step paper and pencil test including two number connection tests, a digit symbol test, a serial dotting test and a line tracing test. PHES examines the patient’s motor speed and accuracy, visual perception, visuospatial orientation, visual construction, concentration and attention. The total PHES score ranges from +6 to −18. A score of -4 or lower is the cut-off for a pathological result [26]. CRT is a test with auditory stimuli in headphones, which emits 150 signals in intervals from one to six seconds. CRT examines the reaction time and endurance by pushing a trigger button after a signal. Using the EKHO software reaction-time analysis tool, an index <1.9 separates covert hepatic encephalopathy from other brain dysfunctions with a specificity of .92 and sensitivity of .93 [27]. According to previous recommendations [3], abnormal test results from both PHES and CRT are required for diagnosing covert hepatic encephalopathy.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data are reported in medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Categorical data are reported in frequencies and percentages. A generalized logistic regression model was used for two explorative analyses of predictive factors for limited health literacy, defined by a NVS score ≤3. Risk ratio (RR) and confidence intervals (CI) of 95% were reported for each factor. The first model included factors pertaining to the following patient characteristics: age (≤64 vs > 65); gender (female vs male); level of education (upper secondary school or higher vs elementary school); other comorbidity (no vs yes); and reason for cirrhosis diagnosis (other cirrhosis diagnosis vs alcohol related cirrhosis). The second model included cirrhosis disease event factors, i.e. ability to work (yes vs no); MELD-score (≤10 vs ≥ 11); presence of hepatic covert encephalopathy (no vs yes); previous event of hepatic overt encephalopathy (no vs yes); ascites (no vs yes), and oesophageal variceal bleeding event (no vs yes).

Jamovi (Version 2.6.11) [Computer Software] retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org was used for analysing data. Due to the exploratory design, no adjustments for multiple testing were made, p < 0.05 was considered significant. Only patients with complete datasets were included in the respective analyses.

Ethics

The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Board in Uppsala, Sweden (Dnr 2016/146) and performed in line with the principles of the declaration of Helsinki [28]. Study participation was preceded by written informed consent.

Results

In total, 167 adults, 94 men and 73 women with a median age of 65 years were included in this study, of whom 58% were identified as having limited health literacy, i.e. ≤ 3 points on the NVS. The most common cirrhosis aetiology was alcohol related liver disease. At the data collection time-point, 99 (59%) of the 167 study participants presented a stable cirrhosis disease stage, i.e. Child-Pugh group A, despite the fact that 109 participants (65%) had previously experienced symptoms of advanced cirrhosis disease, such as ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy and/or bleeding from oesophageal varices. Of these symptoms, ascites was the most common, present in almost half of the participants (n = 79). Twenty-four had experienced a combination of ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy and/or bleeding from oesophageal varices. The majority had no other comorbidities (n = 97). Additional background characteristics are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the entire study group.

Age, median (25–75 percentile) 65 (57–70)
Male gender, n (%) 94 (56)
Upper secondary school or higher education, n (%) 127 (75)
Cohabiting, n (%) 107 (65)
Born in Sweden, n (%) 154 (92)
Occupation
Student or working, n (%) 48 (29)
Retired, n (%) 82 (49)
Fulltime sick leave, n (%) 11 (7)
Unemployed, n (%) 26 (15)
Aetiology of liver disease
Alcohol-related liver disease, n (%) 86 (52)
Metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease, n (%) 22 (13)
Autoimmune liver disease, n (%) 18 (11)
Cryptogenic, n (%) 29 (17)
Chronic viral hepatitis, n (%) 7 (4)
Other, n (%) 5 (3)
Characteristics of cirrhosis
Child-Pugh A/B/C, n (%) 99 (59)/57 (34)/11 (7)
MELD-score, median (25–75 percentile) 9(8–12.5)
History of overt hepatic encephalopathy, n (%) 21 (13)
History of ascites, n(%) 79 (47)
History of oesophageal variceal bleeding, n (%) 36 (22)
Current comorbidity
Musculoskeletal, n (%) 6 (4)
Gastrointestinal, n (%) 7 (4)
Diabetes, n (%) 27 (16)
Cardiovascular, n (%) 16 (10)
Pulmonary, n (%) 7 (4)
Other, n (%) 20 (12)
Numbers of comorbidities
None, n (%) 94 (58)
One or two, n (%) 63 (39)
Two or more, n (%) 4 figure(3)

In the first generalized logistic regression model, predictive factors for limited health literacy were explored in relation to five background characteristics, based on data from 165 of the 167 participants. Low education, i.e. elementary school level, was associated with limited health literacy (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.0–2.2). In contrast, having another comorbidity correlated to a normal health literacy level, i.e. NVS ≥ 4 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.4–0.9) (Table 3). S2 Table 1, provides a complete and detailed description of the analysis.

Table 3. Logistic regression analyses presenting risk ratio of associations between patient characteristics and limited health literacy.

Predictor Risk ratio 95% Confidence interval (CI)
Lower Upper
Age 1.20 0.81 1.77
18-64 vs 65–85
Gender 1.14 0.76 1.70
Female vs male
Education 1.49 1.02 2.19
Upper secondary school/university vs elementary school
Comorbidity 0.64 0.41 0.99
No vs yes
Alcohol related liver disease 0.84 0.55 1.27
No vs yes

In the model, age ≤ 64; female gender; education in upper secondary school or higher; no other comorbidity; diagnoses other than alcohol related cirrhosis were assumed protective factors for limited health literacy.

In the second generalized logistic regression model, predictive factors for limited health literacy were explored in terms of cirrhosis-related disease events, based on data from 156 of the 167 participants. Limited health literacy was associated with covert hepatic encephalopathy, confirmed by psychometric tests (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.0–2.3). A history of cirrhosis decompensation, i.e. ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy or gastroesophageal bleeding, was not associated with limited health literacy in this study group (Table 4). S2 Table 2, provides a complete and detailed description of the analysis.

Table 4. Logistic regression analyses presenting the risk ratio of associations between cirrhosis related disease events and limited health literacy.

Predictor Risk ratio Confidence interval (CI)
Lower Upper
Work ability 1.60 0.90 2.84
No vs yes
MELD-score 1.19 0.81 1.76
≤10 vs ≥ 11
Covert hepatic encephalopathy 1.54 1.03 2.31
No vs yes
Overt hepatic encephalopathy 1.20 0.78 1.85
No vs yes
Ascites 1.11 0.75 1.66
No vs yes
Oesophageal variceal bleeding 1.05 0.67 1.65
No vs yes

In the model, MELD-score ≤10; being able to work; no presence of covert hepatic encephalopathy; no episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy; no ascites; no event of oesophageal variceal bleeding were assumed protective factors for limited health literacy.

Discussion

This is the first study of health literacy in a Swedish cirrhosis population. Health literacy is an insufficiently explored area after cirrhosis, which justifies the explorative design of the present study. The most important finding was the 54% higher risk of limited health literacy in patients with covert hepatic encephalopathy. Covert hepatic encephalopathy is evident in approximately 20–80% of patients with cirrhosis [3,4]. However, it is hardly visible without psychometric testing [3], and therefore commonly under-reported. Although it is known that covert hepatic encephalopathy may precede overt hepatic encephalopathy [6], it is not routinely screened for [5]. This result strengthens previous assumptions made by Kaps et al. [14] and highlight patients’ need of symptom relief of covert hepatic encephalopathy, which may improve self-management [9,11] and autonomy [11]. Hence, our recommendation is to implement regular screening for covert hepatic encephalopathy and adopt a strategy to reduce the symptoms.

Interestingly, we found no association between previous overt hepatic encephalopathy events and limited health literacy. Although there is a fourfold risk of persistent covert hepatic encephalopathy following an episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy [4], none of our patients had a residual risk of limited health literacy after this event. Accordingly, the present findings suggest that the level of health literacy may fluctuate over time in cirrhosis and depend on the patient’s current symptoms.

The present study supports the finding of Freundlich Grydgaard and Bager [13] by confirming that low education is a predictor of limited health literacy in cirrhosis populations. This result is also in line with reports of limited health literacy in general populations [10]. In contrast with Kaps et al., [14], a higher MELD-score or symptoms of ascites did not predict limited health literacy. These contradictory findings may be explained by different MELD score classifications of patients into high or low MELD-score in the two studies. Nor could gender predict limited health literacy, which contradicts findings by Freundlich Grydgaard and Bager [13]. In our study, comorbidity had a positive influence on health literacy, which contradicts previous results of Freundlich Grydgaard and Bager [13], who found that comorbidity had a non-significant influence on health literacy. One reason might be that comorbidities may train patients and improve their ability to draw conclusions from healthcare information.

More than half of the participants in this study were identified as having limited health literacy, which according to Gaag et al. [9] means they have difficulties understanding health-related information. In comparison with other gastrointestinal diseases, such as gastrointestinal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease, patients with cirrhosis report lower grades of health literacy [12]. Low understanding of the illness is repeatedly described for patients with cirrhosis [13,15,16,18]. Hence, HCPs need to make an effort to communicate in a manner that enables patients to understand [8], such as using the teach-back technique [10]. A person-centred approach that adjusts educational strategies based on the patient’s needs, preferences and abilities could also be beneficial [29]. In a clinical setting this may be implemented by adjusting the transfer of knowledge by means of various available tools such as pictures of medication boxes with labels instead of simply providing oral information about medication and doses. Furthermore, leaflets with large text, as well as the use of illustrations, mind-maps, checklists, reminders and ensuring support from significant others can improve health literacy. In accordance with our previous report [30], this may be achieved by team-based cirrhosis outpatient care with registered nurse continuity, which improved patients’ participation in the exchange of information.

Strengths and limitations

One strength is the size of the study population (n = 167), which makes this study to the largest of its kind [13,14]. Our opposite results to those of Keps et al. [14] and Freundlich Grydgaard and Bager [13] may be explained by differences in patient characteristics. For example, a comparison of Child Pugh scores demonstrate that our cohort had better liver function. The German population [14] had twice as many patients representing Child Pugh group C and the Danish population [13] had a larger group represented by Child Pugh group B compared to the cohort in this study. Another important difference between the present study and the German [14] and Danish [13] ones was the instruments used for measuring health literacy. In contrast to the two previous studies [13,14] that used the health literacy questionnaire that measures patients’ lived experiences of nine health literacy related domains [31], we measured functional health literacy using the NVS instrument [22]. While both the NVS and the health literacy questionnaire are validated instruments, they are not fully comparable. The advantage of the NVS is the short time for data collection and providing information on the patient’s actual health literacy function, which may be relevant in clinical settings [10,32]. The distribution of the limited vs normal health literacy level in our population was close to 50%, which implies a risk of overestimation of the results if reported with the more common odds ratio [33]. The reporting of our results by use of RR may thus reduce the risk of publication bias. Because the alpha was not adjusted for multiple tests, we recommend that the present results should be interpreted with caution.

During data collection some of the participants perceived the NVS test as an intelligence test, which was experienced as provocative. Therefore, we do not recommend using the NVS for routine screening of health literacy in clinical settings. Instead, HCPs should be observant and ask questions to assess the patients’ understanding of the information provided and how they adjust over time. We view the results of this study as a guide for HCPs identifying persons with cirrhosis at risk of not understanding or acting upon health-related information.

Conclusion

Limited health literacy is common among Swedish adults with cirrhosis. Both covert hepatic encephalopathy and low education might be predictors of limited health literacy. Hence, covert hepatic encephalopathy needs to be actively screened for and optimally treated in outpatient clinics. It is vital that HCPs tailor their patient education based on the patient’s literacy level to facilitate understanding, learning and self-management.

Supporting information

S1 File. STROBE Statement—checklist: Items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOC)

pone.0321780.s001.doc (89.5KB, doc)
S2 File. Detailed logistic regression analyses of health literacy among patients with cirrhosis.

S2 Table 1 reporting associations between patient characteristics and limited health literacy. S2 Table 2 reporting associations between cirrhosis related disease events and limited health literacy.

(DOCX)

pone.0321780.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge all patients who accepted participation in this study. Further, we are indebted to all RNs who contributed to this study by recruiting patients and collecting data. We extend our thanks to Riccardo LoMartire for statistical consultation. Furthermore, a warm and dedicated appreciation to Fredrik Rorsman, Anncarin Svanberg, Daniel Sjöberg and Elenor Kaminsky for participating in designing the project as a whole.

Data Availability

The data contains sensitive patient information and cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions decided by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority and the data register holders. Following approval by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, the de-identified dataset analysed in this study can be made available from Region Dalarna, upon request to e-mail forsknings.utlamnande@regiondalarna.se

Funding Statement

This work was funded by Uppsala University, Ester Åsberg Lindbergs Foundation and the Centre for Clinical Research in Dalarna. The equipment for continuous reaction time and enforcement of the intervention nurses’ tutorial group sessions was funded by Norgine. The sponsors had no impact on the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of data, reporting data or submission for publication. Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

References

  • 1.Ginès P, Krag A, Abraldes JG, Solà E, Fabrellas N, Kamath PS. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1359–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01374-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bhandari K, Kapoor D. Fatigue in Cirrhosis. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2022;12(2):617–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.08.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vilstrup H, Amodio P, Bajaj J, Cordoba J, Ferenci P, Mullen KD, et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715–35. doi: 10.1002/hep.27210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lv X-H, Lu Q, Deng K, Yang J-L, Yang L. Prevalence and Characteristics of Covert/Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Official J Am College of Gastroenterol | ACG. 2024;119(4):690-9. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Elbadry M, Baki AA, bakr A, Elhamrawy EA, Abdel-Tawab H, Aish A, et al. Covert hepatic encephalopathy: a neglected topic—a narrative review. Egypt Liver Journal. 2024;14(1). doi: 10.1186/s43066-024-00364-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tapper EB. Predicting Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy for the Population With Cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2019;70(1):403–9. doi: 10.1002/hep.30533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fabrellas N, Carol M, Palacio E, Aban M, Lanzillotti T, Nicolao G, et al. Nursing Care of Patients With Cirrhosis: The LiverHope Nursing Project. Hepatology. 2020;71(3):1106–16. doi: 10.1002/hep.31117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fabrellas N, Künzler-Heule P, Olofson A, Jack K, Carol M. Nursing care for patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2023;79(1):218–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.01.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van der Gaag M, Heijmans M, Spoiala C, Rademakers J. The importance of health literacy for self-management: A scoping review of reviews. Chronic Illn. 2022;18(2):234–54. doi: 10.1177/17423953211035472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nutbeam D, Lloyd JE. Understanding and Responding to Health Literacy as a Social Determinant of Health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:159–73. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kaps L, Omogbehin L, Hildebrand K, Gairing SJ, Schleicher EM, Moehler M, et al. Health literacy in gastrointestinal diseases: a comparative analysis between patients with liver cirrhosis, inflammatory bowel disease and gastrointestinal cancer. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):21072. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25699-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Freundlich Grydgaard M, Bager P. Health literacy levels in outpatients with liver cirrhosis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(12):1584–9. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2018.1545045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kaps L, Hildebrand K, Nagel M, Michel M, Kremer WM, Hilscher M, et al. Risk factors for poorer health literacy in patients with liver cirrhosis. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0255349. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hjorth M, Svanberg A, Sjöberg D, Rorsman F, Kaminsky E. Liver cirrhosis turns life into an unpredictable roller coaster: A qualitative interview study. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(23–24):4532–43. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hjorth M, Svanberg A, Sjöberg D, Rorsman F, Kaminsky E. Feeling safe or falling through the cracks-Patients’ experiences of healthcare in cirrhosis illness: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0283611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Valery PC, Bernardes CM, Hayward KL, Hartel G, Haynes K, Gordon LG, et al. Poor disease knowledge is associated with higher healthcare service use and costs among patients with cirrhosis: an exploratory study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22(1):340. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02407-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Volk ML, Fisher N, Fontana RJ. Patient knowledge about disease self-management in cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(3):302–5. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Grønkjær LL, Lauridsen MM. Quality of life and unmet needs in patients with chronic liver disease: A mixed-method systematic review. JHEP Rep. 2021;3(6):100370. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2021.100370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hjorth M, Sjöberg D, Svanberg A, Kaminsky E, Langenskiöld S, Rorsman F. Nurse-led clinic for patients with liver cirrhosis-effects on health-related quality of life: study protocol of a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e023064. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31–4. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, Castro KM, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):514–22. doi: 10.1370/afm.405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lennerling A, Kisch AM, Forsberg A. Health Literacy Among Swedish Lung Transplant Recipients 1 to 5 Years After Transplantation. Prog Transplant. 2018;28(4):338–42. doi: 10.1177/1526924818800043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2001;33(2):464–70. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2001.22172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pasqualetti P, Di Lauro G, Festuccia V, Giandomenico G, Casale R. Prognostic value of Pugh’s modification of Child-Turcotte classification in patients with cirrhosis of the liver. Panminerva Med. 1992;34(2):65–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Weissenborn K, Ennen JC, Schomerus H, Rückert N, Hecker H. Neuropsychological characterization of hepatic encephalopathy. J Hepatol. 2001;34(5):768–73. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(01)00026-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lauridsen MM, Thiele M, Kimer N, Vilstrup H. The continuous reaction times method for diagnosing, grading, and monitoring minimal/covert hepatic encephalopathy. Metab Brain Dis. 2013;28(2):231–4. doi: 10.1007/s11011-012-9373-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ekman I, Swedberg K, Taft C, Lindseth A, Norberg A, Brink E, et al. Person-centered care--ready for prime time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;10(4):248–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hjorth M, Svanberg A, LoMartire R, Kaminsky E, Rorsman F. Patient perceived quality of cirrhosis care- adjunctive nurse-based care versus standard medical care: a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled study. BMC Nurs. 2024;23(1):251. doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-01934-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:658. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tavousi M, Mohammadi S, Sadighi J, Zarei F, Kermani RM, Rostami R, et al. Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0271524. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gnardellis C, Notara V, Papadakaki M, Gialamas V, Chliaoutakis J. Overestimation of Relative Risk and Prevalence Ratio: Misuse of Logistic Modeling. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(11):2851. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Isabelle Chemin

23 Jan 2025

Dear Dr. Hjorth,

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Isabelle Chemin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data are available from Region Dalarna upon reasonable request (e-mail: forsknings.utlamnande@regiondalarna.se) provided that the data can be made available in accordance with applicable data protection and privacy regulations.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors are commended for conducting the first study of health literacy in a Swedish cirrhosis population. Health literacy is not adequately studied in patients with cirrhosis. In order for the manuscript to be strengthened the following need to be addressed.

1. It is unclear if the patients were counseled by their hepatologists during the recruitment phase of the study spread over 24 months, introducing a bias in the assessment of HL.

2. The inclusion and exclusion criteria need to clearly stated.

3. The methods particularly the Royal Free Hospital – Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) section need to be revised for clarity. A correlation between the Royal Free Hospital – Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT), and HL is not linear, multiple confounders may impact the association, and needs to be justified.

4. Additionally, 70% higher risk of limited health literacy was exhibited in patients with covert hepatic encephalopathy, indicating a significant gap in the management of hepatic encephalopathy despite their symptoms.

5. It will be interesting to know if the same pattern pf limited HL was shown by patients with other GI disease.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Satish Chandrasekhar Nair

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 May 7;20(5):e0321780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321780.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Feb 2025

We thank you and the Editor and Reviewer for constructive comments on our manuscript, which have helped us to improve the text. In addition to the received comments, we have clarified that our analysis concerned previous events of hepatic encephalopathy and not presence of hepatic encephalopathy as we previously stated in the manuscript (page 9, row 162). We have reviewed all comments and suggestions thoroughly. Below we address them point by point. According to the instructions, the revised manuscript is uploaded in two examples 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' and ‘Manuscript’, without tracked changes. In line with the made changes, the supporting information have been revised, please see Appendix S1 and S2. We hope you will find our revisions satisfactory.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Editor:

- Thank you for the suggestion for deposit a laboratory protocol. This manuscript thus refers to clinical patient data and do not include any laboratory data. Therefore we find this recommendation not applicable.

Reviewer: Comment 1.

We have added information about each participant regular hepatology consultations, which started at the time of cirrhosis diagnosis (page 5, row 94 to page 6, row 96). This study had a cross sectional design, collecting data at one single time point per patient, we therefore deem the risk of bias due to hepatology consultations being limited.

Reviewer: Comment 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been clarified with predefined comorbidities that resulted in exclusion. The information have been summarized in a new added table (Table 1), which is placed in the paragraph ‘Participant and setting’. Accordingly the text in the paragraph has been revised. Please see page 5, row 91 to page 6, row 106.

Due to the new added table, the number for the following tables in the manuscript have been revised (Page 10, row 184; page 10, row 190; and page 11, row 198)

Reviewer: Comment 3.

After consideration we have decided to exclude RFH-NPT form the analysis. Consequently, we agree there is a high risk for confounders for this factor. This change has resulted in the following adjustment in the manuscript:

• The paragraph that described the RFH-NPT has been removed from the data collection section (page 8, rows 143-151).

• Risk for malnutrition has been removed from the statistical analysis section (page 9, rows 163-164).

• Risk ratio and confidence intervals for the second generalized logistic regression model have been adjusted in line with the new analysis (page 11, row 196 and Table 4).

• The new analysis revealed a 54 % higher risk for limited health literacy following covert hepatic encephalopathy, instead of previously reported 70 %, (page 11, row 204).

• Reference 28 has been removed, which is visible in the manuscript without track changes.

Reviewer: Comment 4.

We agree that there is a gap in the management of hepatic encephalopathy. Without systematic screening for hepatic encephalopathy, the symptom may not be identified, which is one of our important reported findings in this study. We have revised the text to clarify the problematic situation without screening routines for hepatic encephalopathy (page 12, row 206-207).

Reviewer: Comment 5.

According to Kaps et al 2022 (Reference 12). Health literacy in patients with cirrhosis is reported to be lower than for patients with gastrointestinal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. In line with this comment, we have elaborated the text for clarification. Please, see page 13, rows 234-236.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter_Hjorth and Forsberg.docx

pone.0321780.s004.docx (21.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Isabelle Chemin

11 Mar 2025

Predictive factors for limited health literacy among persons with cirrhosis: A Swedish explorative cross-sectional study

PONE-D-24-54410R1

Dear Dr.  Hjorth,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Isabelle Chemin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is significantly strengthened The queries have been successfully addressed. No further concerns.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Satish Chandrasekhar Nair

**********

Acceptance letter

Isabelle Chemin

PONE-D-24-54410R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hjorth,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mrs Isabelle Chemin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. STROBE Statement—checklist: Items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOC)

    pone.0321780.s001.doc (89.5KB, doc)
    S2 File. Detailed logistic regression analyses of health literacy among patients with cirrhosis.

    S2 Table 1 reporting associations between patient characteristics and limited health literacy. S2 Table 2 reporting associations between cirrhosis related disease events and limited health literacy.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0321780.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter_Hjorth and Forsberg.docx

    pone.0321780.s004.docx (21.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data contains sensitive patient information and cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions decided by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority and the data register holders. Following approval by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, the de-identified dataset analysed in this study can be made available from Region Dalarna, upon request to e-mail forsknings.utlamnande@regiondalarna.se


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES