Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 18;18(1):e0279368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279368

How health literacy relates to venous leg ulcer healing: A scoping review

Ayoub Bouguettaya 1,*,#, Georgina Gethin 2, Sebastian Probst 3,4, Jane Sixsmith 5, Victoria Team 6, Carolina Weller 6,*,#
Editor: Dimitri Beeckman7
PMCID: PMC9847895  PMID: 36652467

Abstract

Background

The level of personal health literacy of patients with venous leg ulcers is likely to affect their ability to self-manage their condition impacting on their adherence to treatment and influences healing and recovery outcomes.

Objectives

To scope existing research that examined the level of health literacy in venous leg ulcer patients, to identify how this may link to self-management behaviours (particularly physical activity and compression adherence), and venous leg ulcer healing outcomes.

Methods

This scoping review was based on the PRISMA-ScR six-stage framework. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo and Health, Open Grey, and Google Scholar for publications examining general and specific health literacy in those with venous leg ulcers and for those examining any potential links of health literacy with self-management/healing generally, published between 2000–2020. This search was guided by a published protocol; studies that described other types of ulcers or did not examine health literacy were excluded. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria the initial search identified 660 articles.

Results

We included five articles. Four studies used randomised controlled trials or experimental designs to test the effect of specific health literacy interventions on venous leg ulcer knowledge, compression therapy use, or healing outcomes. One study was a cross- sectional survey with qualitative elements, assessing health literacy in venous leg ulcer patients. Broadly, the research suggested that health literacy was suboptimal amongst those with venous leg ulcers, and health literacy interventions had limited effects on improving key venous leg ulcer specific outcomes.

Conclusion

This review provides a synthesis of extant literature examining health literacy in patients with venous leg ulcers. We identified a dearth of literature investigating the value of general and specific health literacy interventions in this space. Most importantly, no recent research on general health literacy and venous leg ulcers was identified, despite strong theoretical utility to do so. The few studies identified largely indicated that targeting health literacy of patients with venous leg ulcers is a viable area of research and intervention, encouraging future researchers and clinicians to consider patient health literacy in venous leg ulcer management.

Introduction

Venous Leg Ulcers (VLUs) are a significant health problem worldwide. VLUs are a chronic skin condition of the lower limbs, often affecting the elderly and those with chronic health illnesses [1, 2]. VLUs affect approximately 1–3% of adults globally [24]. Furthermore, these wounds tend to be severe; recent evidence suggests that almost 20% of wounds present in aged community samples are VLUs [5]. The prevalence of VLU increases with age, doubling among those aged over 65 years [4, 6] The typical VLU patient tends to be female, over 65 years old, has a high risk of cardiovascular events, and has obesity [7]. VLU patients often face ongoing health and quality of life problems [6, 8] partially because the treatment itself requires substantial self-management, leading to significant intrapersonal and interpersonal burdens [3, 6, 9].

For decades, the best practice recommendation for those with an active VLU has been consistent-the use of compression therapy and physical activity [10, 11] Research suggests that the use of below-knee multi-component compression is efficacious [1214] Compression therapy promotes VLU healing by reducing the hydrostatic pressure in lower limbs, enhancing venous return [10] and preventing venous stasis [15] Consistent compression therapy is recommended to prevent VLU recurrence [1214] While other lifestyle changes are also commonly recommended, such as adequate nutrition, leg elevation and particularly physical activity [10, 16, 17] the most consistent evidence base has been the recommendation to patients to consistently use and self-apply compression garments.

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the idea of patient health literacy (HL) in how patients adhere to treatments like compression therapy and physical activity. Patient HL is defined as “the ability to obtain, process, and understand basic health information”. There is some overlap between HL and health knowledge with knowledge of health, health care and systems identified as an element of HL in some definitions. HL provides a toolkit beyond health knowledge alone that can enable patients to apply their knowledge for successful self-management. It is likely that there is a relationship between patients’ knowledge of when and how to use information and the knowledge that they hold. HL is not monolithic; in fact, it is better to see health literacy as health literacies [18] as literacy is related both to the content and the context in which a patient must act. Therefore, here we detail a theoretical distinction between general HL often assessed through population-level surveys [19] and specific HL which deals with health skills and knowledge specific to the condition or disease [20]. “General” HL, as described here, relates to a conceptualisation of HL as a bundle of higher level skills required in order to acquire, understand, and apply health knowledge [18] This is further split in most studies along three key domains: functional literacy (encompassing skills in reading and writing to function), communicative/interactive literacy (extracting/applying new information to changes in circumstances) and critical literacy (advanced skills to critique and use information to control situations and life events when needed; [21]. General HL scales are often used to assess a patient’s general capabilities in accessing and navigating health services (e.g., where do you go for medical advice), often for the purpose of directing health policy at a population scale [18, 21]. However, because health literacy often requires more specific skills that do not neatly fit into functional, communicative, or critical domains, focusing on a specific health literacy that is activated by specific illness contexts may add to our understanding of the impact of HL on health conditions. Therefore, specific HL scales assess individual capabilities in dealing with a specific condition by examining specific skills and confidence that require integration of communicative, functional, and critical literacy in a specific way. For example, specific HL scales exist for diabetes by extending the HL scales to be more specific toward diabetes management skills, such as capacity to understand insulin management [20, 22].

Both general and VLU-specific HL may affect VLU outcomes through affecting patient’s ability to adopt health behaviours. Improvements in general and specific HL may improve patient knowledge and understanding of the benefits of adhering to VLU self-management recommendations [2325], and support patients to adopt healthy behaviours in line with an agreed management plan. For example, when choosing compression hosiery, patients may rely on HL to critique the options based on their analysis of comfort [26] compared with achieving maximum therapeutic benefit [27]. Furthermore, HL may enhance their compression application skills due to improved understanding of the manufacturer’s instructions [14, 28]. Finally, improved HL may influence patient understanding that lifelong compression hosiery is recommended to prevent VLU recurrence [29].

Recent research has reported that people vulnerable to VLUs, those with VLUs, and those with other comorbidities tend to have concurrent unmet HL needs [30]. For example, although the 2015 European HL survey showed that respondents received an average score of 33.8/50 (demonstrating “sufficient” HL), the majority (58%+) of people aged over 66 years had limited HL, compared to less than half of the general population [19]. A possible reason is internet usage. Though internet usage is proportional to increased HL [31], current research consistently reports that older adults prefer to learn from their health care professionals [29], as opposed to independent learning through the use of the internet [32]. Qualitative research has shown that VLU patients often discuss the volume of information and skills that are needed for self-management upon VLU development as a significant burden, as VLU self-management can be complex [23] and demanding [24]. The education needs of VLU patients are not well understood [25] contributing to unmet HL needs. In general, limited HL in adults is associated with reduced adherence to treatment and health recommendations, poorer health outcomes and increased cost of medical treatment [33], especially amongst older adults [34]. Furthermore, checking on patient understanding is not a routine practice for health care professionals [5], although this was recommended in at least one set of international guidelines on VLU care [11].

Rationale

Limited qualitative studies published in the past indicate that HL may affect VLU patients’ self-management capabilities [3537], yet there have been no recent reviews published examining the level of HL of patients with VLUs, and the effect it has on patient’s adoption of health behaviours. These studies suggest that inadequate HL reduces the likelihood of engaging in VLU compression, but there is also the possibility that those with lower HL may not increase their physical activity in response to a VLU (despite also being in the recommendations). One educational intervention study (N = 20) reported specific health knowledge in VLU is suboptimal, although demonstrated that there is utility in improving health knowledge (and potentially skills) in VLU patients, as they also felt more confident in their VLU management afterwards [38]. However, this study did not examine physical activity rates, and was hampered by a small sample size. Other research [39] on illnesses that share psychological antecedents and risk factors with VLUs (e.g., diabetes; [40, 41]) suggests that understanding HL in these patients can translate into improvements in health.

Research objectives and present study

The aim of this scoping review was to scope the research examining the level of HL in VLU patients, how this level may link to self-management behaviours/knowledge (particularly physical activity and compression adherence), and VLU healing generally. Given that HL in VLU patients appears less extensively researched than other factors in VLU healing, we opted to conduct a scoping review. This review type was a flexible method for identifying and discussing information useful for answering our research questions, and allowing a holistic presentation of the available literature on this topic [42]. Our primary question was:

  • 1) What levels of HL (both general and specific) have been reported in adults with active or past VLUs across outpatient, home care, community, and inpatient care?

Our secondary research questions were as follows:

  • 2) Is there any relationship (correlational or experimental) between HL and VLU patient adherence to compression therapy, health knowledge, and physical activity?

  • 3) Is there any relationship between HL and VLU patient healing outcomes?

Methods

The approach for this scoping review was adapted from the PRISMA [43] guidelines for scoping reviews. We conducted the review in accordance with the PRISMA Extended for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [14] (Table 1). Methods were developed based on guidelines developed by Levac et al. [43] using the six framework stages in the published protocol [44].

Table 1. Included studies.

Author, year Title Country Setting Intervention type Study population Aims of the study Methods Outcome measures Results
1. Protz et al, 2019 Education in people with venous leg ulcers based on a brochure about compression therapy: A quasi-randomised controlled trial Germany & Austria Ambulatory care and medical practices, hospitals and specialised clinical wound practice Intervention group provided with brochure: Compression therapy–easy and well-fitting; asked to read this at home and complete a knowledge questionnaire at the next visit. Control group completed the questionnaire at their first clinic visit without the brochure. 136 Patients with VLU > 18 years, German speaking. (IG 68 / CG68) This study will provide data on how much patients with VLU and related compression therapy benefit from using the described brochure on patient education. It focuses on the improvement of theoretical knowledge, practical abilities, and related skills-subjectively and factually. RCT 1. Estimation of subjective knowledge [4-point scale 1 = very good, 4 = inadequate].
2. Knowledge of effects of compression therapy and risk for venous disease [two questions, five items].
3. Self-care and vein support activities [two questions, five and six items respectively].
4. Skin care [two questions].
5. Decongestion phase [one question].
6. Care of compression materials [one question].
7. Donning devices [one question].
1. In total, the subjective knowledge in the case group was similar or only a bit higher than in the control group. The six questions addressed the function of the veins, the causes of venous diseases, the effects of compression therapy, the products of compression therapy, the cleansing of compression materials, and the awareness about what the patient can contribute to therapy and prevention. Only in the latter case, the difference between the two groups was significant (p = 0.023)
2. Patients in the case group had significantly more knowledge than patients in the control group in most items except underweight (p .359).
3. In most items, the patients in the case group had significantly more knowledge than the patients in the control group. According to the knowledge about vein sport activities, both groups mainly answered correctly. Nevertheless, for each item, a (much) higher percentage of the control group chose the wrong option.
4. The difference between the two groups was significant in any item (P = .000) with those in the intervention group responding correctly more than the control group.
5. There was no statistical difference between groups in five out of six items with the question son use of multicomponent systems correctly answered more often by the intervention group.
6. The comparison of the case and control groups showed significant differences (P = .000) in the knowledge about donning devices for the easier usage of medical compression stockings.
2. Gonzalez 2014 Education project to improve venous stasis self-management knowledge USA Out patients specializing in wound care Education intervention of 45 mins duration; brochure and handout and overview of self-care activities 30 patients with VLU To evaluate patients’ knowledge of chronic venous disease, venous ulcers, and self-care at baseline, immediately following, 2, and 9 weeks after an educational intervention. Single group before and after design 1. Scores on the Checklist for Patient Learning measured at baseline, 2 week and 9week follow-up
2. Wound healing as reported by participants at 2 and 9 weeks.
3. Wound recurrence as reported by participants at 9 weeks.
1. Statistically significant differences were found when baseline mean scores were compared to scores immediately following intervention, and scores measured at 2 and 9 weeks.
2. Ninety-three percent of wounds were assessed as healing at 2 weeks, and 80% were assessed as healing at 9 weeks
3. The reported venous ulcer recurrence rate at 9 weeks was 50%
3. Clarke-Moloney et al, 2005 Information leaflets for venous leg ulcer patients: are they effective? Ireland Vascular surgery department Verbal information plus an information leaflet 20 patients with newly diagnosed VLU To determine the usefulness of providing written information for patients with leg ulcers. Emphasis on testing the information provided rather than testing the patients. RCT 1. Differences in patient’s knowledge of their condition and its treatment after 4–6 weeks. 1. At follow-up there was an overall significant improvement in the amount of correct answers for a number of questions, although there was no significant improvement between the groups. The difference in total scores at baseline and follow-up between the groups was not significantly different (p = 0.83)
4. Gonzalez, 2017 The effect of a patient education intervention on knowledge and venous ulcer recurrence: results of a prospective intervention and retrospective analysis USA, Florida Home Care A patient education programme. A 45-minute programme delivered in a one-on-one setting in the patients’ home Three groups:
A (n = 28) Follow up assessment of education programme,
B (n = 22) newly enrolled group
C (n = 45) retrospective chart review representing a control group
To understand the long-term efficacy of patient education and to assess a cause-effect relationship between education and the prevention of venous ulcer recurrence. Three parallel groups, non- randomised 1. Knowledge scores assessed using Checklist for patient learning [13-point scale with 13 indicating best outcome].
2. Healing rates
3. Recurrence rates
1. Unpaired t-tests comparing groups A and B at post-intervention (P = .121), 2 weeks (P = .544), 9 weeks (P = .433), and 36 weeks following the intervention (P = 0.687) indicate no substantial difference in the scores between the groups. Learning retention for group A at 36 weeks following the educational intervention showed it was significant for the entire Checklist for Patient Learning (P = .041) as well as for the subscales disease knowledge (P = .039) and self-care knowledge (P = .022). In group B increases in scores were noted for the entire Checklist for Patient Learning and for the disease and self-care knowledge subscales: 36-weeks disease subscale (P = .020) and self-care knowledge subscale (P = .021).
2. Wound healing at 9 weeks was Group A 80%; Group B 86% and not reported for group C
3. Recurrence at 9 and 36 weeks respectively for group A was 50% and 50%; Group B 36% and 55% and Group C 69% and 31%.
5. Finlayson et al 2010 The impact of psychosocial factors on adherence to compression therapy to prevent recurrence of venous leg ulcers Australia Patient clinics or a hospital department and a community-based clinic No intervention. This was a follow up survey of those previously diagnosed with a VLU that healed between 12–36 months prior to the study 122 participants 1. To identify participants knowledge regarding their condition and the self-care activities they undertook to prevent recurrence
2. To determine which demographic or psychosocial factors influenced adherence to compression therapy
Cross-sectional survey and retrospective chart review 1. Knowledge of cause of their condition
2. Self-care activities
3. Demographic health and psychosocial factors influencing adherence to compression hosiery
1. Full range of knowledge and self-care activities reported. No comparison groups and no baseline or follow-up scores, so only scores for one time point reported.

Help in formulating and executing this search was provided by the host university’s Library services at [redacted] University, [city, location]. This search strategy was registered in the published protocol [44]. No ethics approval was required as we used data from publicly available platforms with no risk of identification of participants.

Using COVIDENCE and EndNote, one author (AB) ran multiple searches through academic search engines (EBSCOhost, PubMed, Open Grey) and public search engines (e.g., Google Scholar) to search through the targeted databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo and Health, Open Grey, and Google Scholar. This search strategy sought to find papers to answer the three research questions. The search was limited to January 2000 to August 2020, with the most recent search conducted February 2021. The literature search was developed using a combination of medical search headings and free text words. The keywords and search string relevant to Medline via Ovid can be found in S1 Appendix. The full search was conducted using Boolean operators and proximity operators, including wildcards, AND, OR, parentheses, quotations, and more as per the database used. All papers went through a quality assessment. This assessment of the included studies was independently conducted by AB and VT, and any differences in the quality assessment were resolved through a consensus meeting and discussion We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Checklist for RCTs (see [45]) for the included RCTs by Clarke Moloney et al [46] and Protz et al [47] the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool of controlled intervention studies [48] for the included non-randomised controlled intervention by Gonzalez [49]; the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies see [48] for a cross-sectional study by Finlayson et al; and NIH Quality Assessment Tool for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group for the pre- and post- educational intervention study by Gonzalez [50]. All CASP assessments can be found in S1 File.

Authors also had to make a judgement on whether or not HL was specific or general, as most papers did not clarify this distinction; all authors worked together to reach a consensus on this categorisation.

Results

Search results

The literature search retrieved 660 citations; 29 duplicates were excluded resulting in 629 titles (Fig 1). Overall, 23 were considered eligible for potential inclusion. Following full text assessment, we further excluded 18 studies, leaving five remaining. Fig 1 describes this process, and Table 1 details the findings. Due to the low number and study heterogeneity, no synthesis was attempted. The inconsistent way in which HL was described by authors led to some overlap between HL and prior health knowledge. Some studies detailed skills as part of health knowledge, and therefore these studies were retained. Therefore, this assessment of quality of evidence was left to a discussion between authors instead, and represented through a table (Table 1).

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 1

Summary of studies

Levels of HL in VLU patients

Of the five studies, one examined specific HL in VLU patients [51]. This was a cross-sectional (survey) study with qualitative elements [51]. The cross-sectional study examined specific HL in VLU patients (N = 122), in relation to their knowledge of the cause of their condition, their self-care activities, and demographic healthy/psychosocial factors relating to their adherence to compression hosiery. The majority of participants (58%) either did not know the cause of their VLUs or cited incorrect causes, suggesting specific HL in this cohort was low. Most participants did not wear their compression stockings daily (53%), with 20% not wearing their compression at all. A similar proportion replaced their compression hosiery less than twice a year. Multiple regression analysis further showed that the level of knowledge was strongly associated with wearing compression hosiery (β = 1.92, SE = .61, p = .002, partial η2 = .10).

HL and VLU compression, exercise, and VLU knowledge

Four studies examined the effect of HL interventions on VLU compression/healing outcomes or VLU knowledge [4750]. Of these, all used specific HL interventions designed to educate patients about VLUs, and how to self-manage. None used general HL interventions designed to improve general patient knowledge and efficacy. Of these four, none examined the effect of the HL intervention against compression, and two examined the effect of HL intervention against healing. None measured the effect of HL interventions against physical activity in VLU patients, or assessed a link between HL and physical activity. All four examined the change in health knowledge compared to baseline.

HL interventions designed to improve specific HL against VLUs for patients were broadly successful. A quasi-randomised controlled trial (N = 136) in German and Austrian VLU patients demonstrated this by providing half of patients with a brochure on skills, and testing them on their VLU specific HL later [47]. This intervention showed that this type of intervention increased HL about self-care, donning devices, skincare, and knowledge of the effects of compression in the experimental group compared to the control group, but did not appear to improve HL in subjective knowledge estimation, multicomponent systems, and various questions on veins, causes of diseases, and cleaning of materials.

Another randomised controlled trial (N = 20) examined the effect of adding a leaflet to patient information for newly diagnosed VLU patients in Ireland, after a verbal explanation of their condition [46]. They assessed specific HL in relation to VLUs as their main outcome, finding that overall, there was a significant improvement in specific HL at follow-up for both the control and leaflet group. However, there was no significant difference between the patients receiving the leaflet versus no leaflet at both follow-ups, suggesting the leaflet was ineffective.

HL and patient healing

Two American studies by the same author provided an intervention to improve VLU patient knowledge and examined VLU wound healing as an outcome. The first [49] tested a patient education program on VLUs for VLU patients (N = 30). The authors used a custom tool to assess VLU specific HL on self-care and disease process (asking 13 questions, with a maximum score of 13 if all answered correctly). The authors also assessed VLU healing/recurrence. Results showed there were significant, sustained gains in specific HL knowledge at multiple timepoints compared to pre-educational programs, and recurrence was lower than in other studies, the effect of the educational intervention on wound healing was not directly assessed. The second study [50] used the same tools, methods, and outcomes (N = 95), but used a non-randomised design to compare three groups. A retrospective chart review was used to act as a control group (n = 45), a retrospective group that had already received the intervention (n = 28) as a 36-week follow-up, and a prospective intervention group (n = 22). The educational intervention had a significant positive effect on the two intervention groups’ VLU HL compared to baseline. Recurrence rates appeared to be lower in the two intervention groups compared to the control group. VLU healing rates were not reported. Notably, across both studies specific HL pre-intervention could be characterised as poor, with participants scoring on average between 4.1 and 4.3 correct answers out of 13.

Quality assessment

We used four various critical appraisal tools recommended for each included study design (Please refer to the individual quality assessment tools–supplementary files 1–5 in S1 File) and, therefore, a summary table was not generated.

The quality of a small scale double-blind randomised controlled trial by Clarke Moloney et al [46] was rated as poor. Although the researchers appropriately reported their attempts to minimize bias, they had a small sample of 20 participants, and the probability of committing the type 1 error is high. The quality of the quasi-randomised controlled trial by Protz et al [47] was assessed as fair. The researchers were not blinded and, therefore, there is a high risk of selection bias. There was no information on any differences between the study groups that could affect the outcomes reported at baseline. The cost-effectiveness analysis of this intervention was not conducted.

The quality of the cross-sectional study [51] was rated as good. The quality of the pre- and post- educational intervention study [49] and a non-randomised controlled intervention [50] were assessed as poor due to the small sample size and a high probability of the type 1 error. Moreover, the study outcomes, including wound healing and recurrence were self-reported by the participants and were not assessed by clinicians. Furthermore, the study outcomes were not controlled for various comorbidities, which might have influenced the VLU healing and recurrence rather than improved knowledge.

Discussion

This review was aimed to scope the literature that examined HL (both broad and disease specific) in people with VLUs, and how HL might link to self-management (particularly compression adherence and physical activity) knowledge and healing outcomes. Limited conclusions could be reached from these studies, as there were few that met the criteria overall. The included studies suggested that VLU specific HL was low, and disease-specific HL interventions may have some impact on specific HL and wound healing. Therefore, it is possible that HL does have some link with compression utilisation and wound healing, but the evidence is limited.

The included study that examined HL in VLU patients suggests that specific HL is low [51]. Overall, most studies suggested that VLU-specific HL was far below what would be needed in order to manage one’s condition. There is no research using a standardized general HL tool in VLU patients, like the well validated HLS-EU-Q16 [52]. However, by focusing on specific HL on a debilitating condition that consumes a large amount of time and effort by patients [53], arguably this may be superior than a general intervention that may not add VLU specific skills in some environments. For example, in Australia, contacting one’s general practitioner and following their recommended treatments may have utility for heart disease, but asking about VLUs would most likely lead to incorrect treatment advice from General Practitioners (GPs) as GP knowledge on VLU treatment is low [7, 54]. Furthermore, even if GPs did offer correct information, there is a gap between patient and GP motivations in VLU management, meaning this gap likely also affects attending to specific HL advice [55]. Therefore, assessing VLU specific HL may be a superior assessment.

There were no identified research studies that examined the correlation between HL and the predictors of adherence to physical activity, and VLU wound healing. Only one correlational study showed VLU specific HL was associated with greater self-reported compression rates [51]. Intervention-based research suggest there may be some utility in improving HL to improve patient activities in compression and therefore, wound healing. Most notably, the two American studies by Gonzales [49, 50] provided the strongest link, finding that improving VLU specific HL improved knowledge and the likelihood of recurrence. While VLU healing was not affected, this was likely due to the smaller sample size (i.e., smaller or medium effect sizes undetectable in smaller samples) or the delayed effect of HL improvement on VLU improvement.

The lack of research on physical activity and HL in VLUs was surprising, but may be due to the significant controversy in whether or not physical activity, in addition to compression, has any effect [17]. Although there is strong theoretical evidence for physical activity in improving VLU healing [56], the link may be weaker or more distal than other factors [17], and thus fewer studies may seek to examine this factor relative to more direct links.

Overall, the research into HL and VLUs is too limited to make any assertions on the state of HL in VLU patients, and how HL may relate to compression, healing, or physical activity. Recent health belief research on patients with other types of ulcers with similar risk profiles indicated that prior assumptions and knowledge were integral in adherence to health directives [57]. The little evidence that exists on HL and VLUs seems to have similar implications.

Limitations

The main limitation of this scoping review is that all included studies have assessed the participants’ knowledge rather than health literacy, which limited the relevance of the included studies to our research questions. In fact, there was overlap between VLU knowledge and VLU HL skills, which the authors had to detangle through consensus. Three research questions we formulated in this review did not match well with the research questions of the included studies. There is a considerable dearth of high quality, large observational studies that examine HL and VLU healing over time, and the factors involved. Of all the studies included in this review, only two examined VLU-specific HL and healing, although neither reported these findings in sufficient detail, and both had small sample sizes. Both were also written by the same author in one region of the US. The reported findings have limited generalisability. The research questions we formulated in this review, and the research questions in each study included in this review, largely could not be answered with the findings the authors provided. Furthermore, there are no unified HL scales used across studies on VLUs (either general or specific), meaning it is difficult to compare across studies. In fact, there was overlap between VLU knowledge and VLU HL skills, which the authors had to detangle through consensus.

Most of the included studies were experimental, meaning many required smaller sample sizes to assess their research question compared to ours (as effect sizes are larger for within subject experimental studies than observational ones). By contrast, in order to optimally assess our research question, we would need to assess a wide variety of studies with somewhat similar conceptualisations on VLU specific HL, following many patients over a long period of time. A large, prospective study using well-validated tools of HL and direct observation of compression adherence, physical activity, and VLU healing could assist in answering our research questions.

Our terminology in the research question required far more judgement of what constituted HL versus health knowledge than initially anticipated. While our protocol suggested we would include health knowledge to some degree, it became clear (through our assessments) that HL and health knowledge were often tangled in these papers. Therefore, authors had to make a judgement on HL versus health knowledge, a concept not otherwise included in the protocol. In the protocol, we stated that we will use CASP to assess the quality of the included studies. However, because of the various study designs of the included studies, we also used other critical appraisal tools recommended for quality assessment of these designs. While these deviations likely did not significantly affect the results, nor the process, it is important to clarify our decisions to ensure clarity of our findings.

Finally, there is a fundamental assumption embedded in the theoretical approach of our research question: an implied mediation that none of the studies cited could directly answer. That is, a key part of the study rationale posits that HL leads to improved self-management through compression and physical activity, which then leads to faster VLU healing. However, this link is not assessed in this order in any of the studies, as it would require a longitudinal study with strong causal mechanisms being demonstrated between each of these factors over time. Furthermore, this study would have to also assess other possible causal factors that may correlate with HL which leads to higher compression rates. For example, patients from higher socioeconomic groups with access to higher quality healthcare may gain specific and general HL through higher quality care, or through the reverse [58]. There is a potential issue where those who have higher socioeconomic status and who have higher levels of HL may also be better able to find and process patient education materials, meaning HL and patient education may be conflated in this paper. Future research should seek to clarify any potential links between HL, socioeconomic status, adherence to management and treatment regimens, and healing by incorporating a qualitative component to a large-scale study. For example, using an established consumer wound group made up of families and caregivers would assist greatly in understanding the links between HL and VLU specific outcomes.

Conclusions

The results of this review suggest that there is a lack of high-quality research on the links between HL and VLU patients’ compression utilisation and VLU healing. Limited research suggests that there is a deficit of HL in VLU patients. While the effects of HL have received more attention in recent years in other conditions, such as diabetic foot ulcers, surprisingly little research has been conducted on the role of HL in VLU management. We, therefore, highlight the need for a quality prospective study that employ validated HL tools to assess HL in patients with VLUs.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist- for health literacy and VLU healing.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Search strings for MEDLINE via Ovid.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

Monash Library

Catelyn Richards (research assistant)

Data Availability

These data are the result of a review and therefore all research used for the conclusions are available to all.

Funding Statement

The corresponding author (CW) was supported by the grant from the Australian NHMRC (NUMBER APP1069329). https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ he funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.(WHO) WHO. International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics
  • 2.Kelly M, Gethin G. Prevalence of chronic illness and risk factors for chronic illness among patients with venous leg ulceration: a cross-sectional study. The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds. 2019;18[33]:301–8. doi: 10.1177/1534734619850444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Urwin S, Dumville JC, Sutton M, Cullum N. Health service costs of treating venous leg ulcers in the UK: evidence from a cross-sectional survey based in the north west of England. BMJ open. 2022;12[1]:e056790. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pérez MB, López‐Casanova P, Lavín RS, Torre HGdl, Verdú‐Soriano J. Recent Reports from University of Alicante Highlight Findings in Leg Ulcers [Epidemiology of venous leg ulcers in primary health care: Incidence and prevalence in a health centre-A time series study [2010–2014]] Citation metadata. International Wound Journal. 2018;16[1]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Graham S, Brookey J. Do patients understand? The permanente journal. 2008;12[33]:67. doi: 10.7812/TPP/07-144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6 Gethin G, Vellinga A, Tawfick W, O’Loughlin A, McIntosh C, Mac Gilchrist C, et al. The profile of patients with venous leg ulcers: a systematic review and global perspective. Journal of Tissue Viability. 2021;30[1]:78–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weller CD, Richards C, Turnour L, Team V. Understanding factors influencing venous leg ulcer guideline implementation in Australian primary care. International wound journal. 2020;17[33]:804–18. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kapp S, Santamaria N. The financial and quality‐of‐life cost to patients living with a chronic wound in the community. International Wound Journal. 2017;14[66]:1108–19. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jiang Q, Dumville JC, Cullum N, Pan J, Liu Z. Epidemiology and disease burden of complex wounds for inpatients in China: an observational study from Sichuan province. BMJ open. 2020;10[11]:e039894. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Australian Wound Management Association Inc., New Zealand Wound Care Society Inc. Australian and New Zealand Practice Guideline for Prevention and Management of Venous Leg Ulcers. 2011 October 2011.
  • 11.Franks PJ, Barker J, Collier M, Gethin G, Haesler E, Jawien A, et al. Management of Patients With Venous Leg Ulcers: Challenges and Current Best Practice. J Wound Care. 2016;25 Suppl 6[66]:S1–S67. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup6.S1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Australian Wound Management Association. KPMG Health Econ report: An economic evaluation of compression therapy for venous leg ulcers. Canberra: Australian Wound Management Association; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Andriessen A, Apelqvist J, Mosti G, Partsch H, Gonska C, Abel M. Compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: risk factors for adverse events and complications, contraindications—a review of present guidelines. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31[99]:1562–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.O’Meara S, Cullum N, Nelson E, Dumville J. Compression for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. 2013[11]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Team V, Chandler PG, Weller CD. Adjuvant therapies in venous leg ulcer management: A scoping review. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27[55]:562–90. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Orr L, Klement KA, McCrossin L, O’Sullivan Drombolis D, Houghton PE, Spaulding S, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Exercise Intervention for the Treatment of Calf Muscle Pump Impairment in Individuals with Chronic Venous Insufficiency. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2017;63(8):30–43. doi: 10.25270/owm.2017.08.3043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Smith D, Lane R, McGinnes R, O’Brien J, Johnston R, Bugeja L, et al. What is the effect of exercise on wound healing in patients with venous leg ulcers? A systematic review. International wound journal. 2018;15[33]:441–53. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Nutbeam D. Defining and measuring health literacy: what can we learn from literacy studies?: Springer; 2009. p. 303–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sørensen K, Pelikan JM, Röthlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). European Journal of Public Health. 2015;25[66]:1053–8. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yamashita T, Kart CS. Is diabetes‐specific health literacy associated with diabetes‐related outcomes in older adults? Journal of diabetes. 2011;3[22]:138–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-0407.2011.00112.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health promotion international. 2000;15[33]:259–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nath CR, Sylvester ST, Yasek V, Gunel E. Development and validation of a literacy assessment tool for persons with diabetes. The Diabetes Educator. 2001;27[66]:857–64. doi: 10.1177/014572170102700611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chase SK, Melloni M, Savage A. A forever healing: the lived experience of venous ulcer disease. J Vasc Nurs. 1997;15[22]:73–8. doi: 10.1016/s1062-0303(97)90004-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Weller CD, Richards C, Turnour L, Team V. Patient Explanation of Adherence and Non-Adherence to Venous Leg Ulcer Treatment: A Qualitative Study. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2021;12:1382. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.663570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shanley E, Moore Z, Patton D, O’Connor T, Nugent L, Budri AM, et al. Patient education for preventing recurrence of venous leg ulcers: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2020;29[22]:79–91. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.2.79 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boxall SL, Carville K, Leslie GD, Jansen S. Compression bandaging: Identification of factors contributing to non-concordance. Wound Practice & Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Association. 2019;27[1]:6. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Muldoon J. Compression hosiery for venous conditions: a literature review. Journal of Community Nursing. 2019;33[44]. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shi C, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Compression bandages or stockings versus no compression for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019(8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Turner AM, Osterhage KP, Taylor JO, Hartzler AL, Demiris G, editors. A Closer Look at Health Information Seeking by Older Adults and Involved Family and Friends: Design Considerations for Health Information Technologies. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; 2018: American Medical Informatics Association. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 30. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s health 2018. Australia’s health series no. 16. AUS 221. Canberra: AIHW; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yamashita T, Bardo AR, Liu D, Cummins PA. Literacy, numeracy, and health information seeking among middle-aged and older adults in the United States. Journal of aging and health. 2020;32[1]:33–41. doi: 10.1177/0898264318800918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chaudhuri S, Le T, White C, Thompson J, Demiris G. Examining health information–seeking behaviors of older adults. Computers, informatics, nursing. 2013;31[11]:547. doi: 10.1097/01.NCN.0000432131.92020.42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.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[22]:97–107. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.MacLeod S, Musich S, Gulyas S, Cheng Y, Tkatch R, Cempellin D, et al. The impact of inadequate health literacy on patient satisfaction, healthcare utilization, and expenditures among older adults. Geriatric Nursing. 2017;38[44]:334–41. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2016.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Walshe C. Living with a venous leg ulcer: a descriptive study of patients’ experiences. Journal of advanced nursing. 1995;22[66]:1092–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb03110.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chase SK, Whittemore R, Crosby N, Freney D, Howes P, Phillips TJ. Living with chronic venous leg ulcers: a descriptive study of knowledge and functional health status. J Community Health Nurs. 2000;17[1]:1–13. doi: 10.1207/S15327655JCHN1701_01 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Probst S, Sechaud L, Bobbink P, Skinner MB, Weller CD. The lived experience of recurrence prevention in patients with venous leg ulcers: An interpretative phenomenological study. J Tissue Viability. 2020;29[33]:176–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Clarke C, Whitmore L, Webb A. Patient education pictorial boards: improving patients’ understanding of venous leg ulcer and compression therapy. Wounds UK. 2020;16[22]. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Marciano L, Camerini A-L, Schulz PJ. The role of health literacy in diabetes knowledge, self-care, and glycemic control: a meta-analysis. Journal of general internal medicine. 2019;34[66]:1007–17. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04832-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Margolis D, Knauss J, Bilker W. Medical conditions associated with venous leg ulcers. British Journal of Dermatology. 2004;150[22]:267–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.05773.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.De Almeida S, Salomé GM, Dutra R, Ferreira LM. Feelings of powerlessness in individuals with either venous or diabetic foot ulcers. Journal of tissue viability. 2014;23[33]:109–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2014.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research synthesis methods. 2014;5[44]:371–85. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169[77]:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Weller CD, Team V, Probst S, Gethin G, Richards C, Sixsmith J, et al. Health literacy in people with venous leg ulcers: a protocol for scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11[55]:e044604. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044604 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist: CRITICAL APPRAISAL SKILLS PROGRAMME; 2022 [Available from: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Randomised-Controlled-Trial-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf.
  • 46.Clarke Moloney M, Moore A, Adelola O, Burke P, McGee H, Grace P. Information leaflets for venous leg ulcer patients: are they effective? Journal of wound care. 2005;14[22]:75–7. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2005.14.2.26730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Protz K, Dissemond J, Seifert M, Hintner M, Temme B, Verheyen-Cronau I, et al. Education in people with venous leg ulcers based on a brochure about compression therapy: A quasi-randomised controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2019;16[66]:1252–62. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study Quality Assessment Tools: National Institute of Health; 2021. [updated Jul 2021. Available from: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gonzalez A. Education project to improve venous stasis self-management knowledge. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2014;41[66]:556–9. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gonzalez A. The Effect of a Patient Education Intervention on Knowledge and Venous Ulcer Recurrence: Results of a Prospective Intervention and Retrospective Analysis. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2017;63[66]:16–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Finlayson K, Edwards H, Courtney M. The impact of psychosocial factors on adherence to compression therapy to prevent recurrence of venous leg ulcers. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19[9–10]:1289–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03151.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Storms H, Claes N, Aertgeerts B, Van den Broucke S. Measuring health literacy among low literate people: an exploratory feasibility study with the HLS-EU questionnaire. BMC public health. 2017;17[1]:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.González‐Consuegra RV, Verdú J. Quality of life in people with venous leg ulcers: an integrative review. Journal of advanced nursing. 2011;67[55]:926–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05568.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Weller CD, Bouguettaya A, Britt H, Harrison C. Management of people with venous leg ulcers by Australian general practitioners: An analysis of the national patient‐encounter data. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2020;28[44]:553–60. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Weller C, Richards C, Turnour L, Team V. Venous leg ulcer management in Australian primary care: Patient and clinician perspectives. International journal of nursing studies. 2021;113:103774. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tew GA, Michaels J, Crank H, Middleton G, Gumber A, Klonizakis M. Supervised exercise training as an adjunctive therapy for venous leg ulcers: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16[1]:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0963-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Zainal N, Holloway S, Edney SM. Health belief theories and their influence on adherance behaviours in individuals with diabetic foot ulceration: A literature review. Journal of Wound Management. 2021;22[22]:15–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Stormacq C, Van den Broucke S, Wosinski J. Does health literacy mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and health disparities? Integrative review. Health promotion international. 2019;34[55]:e1–e17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dimitri Beeckman

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

10 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-40133How health literacy relates to venous leg ulcer healing: A scoping review.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bouguettaya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Professor dr. Dimitri Beeckman, Ph.D.

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/5/e044604.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The senior author (CW) was supported by the grant from the Australian NHMRC (NUMBER APP1069329). Funders had no role in this manuscript.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The corresponding author (CW) was supported by the grant from the Australian NHMRC (NUMBER APP1069329).

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/

he funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript. We have now received the reports from two reviewers and both have positive and negative comments. Some comments are also somewhat contradictory. I agree with reviewer #1 that the concepts (health literacy and knowledge) should be more clearly defined. They are the basis for this paper. I think the comment about the different dimensions is important. The other comments, of course, fit seamlessly into this feedback and deserve the necessary attention/focus. I encourage the authors to revise their paper and submit an amended version.

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. I have read it with great interest because I think this is an important topic to investigate.

I have read the manuscript and it puzzles me because it features two concepts ( knowledge and health literacy). I think it is important to be distinct with these concepts especially as the purpose of this scoping review was to investigate HL and VLU. The two concepts are not clearly described at this stage. Consider revising aim and result and discussion.

Introduction

Describes VLU very well. But the section about HL needs to be elaborated. The authors write about general and specific HL. This way of describing HL is new to me. To my knowledge , HL levels refer to three dimension functional, communicative or critical ( Nutbeam, 2009). I wonder if the authors mean generic or disease specific instruments? However, this categorisations or levels need to explained further.

I lack information about the different dimensions in HL: functional, communicative and critical HL or functional/basic, communicative/interactive and critical HL depending on different definitions. Also, a description of what these dimensions entails.

Further, FHL, C& C HL scale by Ishikawa was first developed and tested in a sample of patients with diabetes. Ishikawas instruments have been translated to different languages and have been tested in different populations (eg. to mention some, office workers, patients with Parkinson, patients with obesity). The original FHL and CC & C HL by Ishikawa was valid and reliable in a group with diabetes. But the questions were not explicitly linked to diabetes ( example of one question in FHL scale: Do you think that it is difficult to read health information because the text is difficult to see (even if you have glasses or contact lenses)? Therefore, I wonder if the “etiquette” that it is a disease specific instrument is perhaps not fully correct.

I lack information on how to measure HL, there are a variety of instruments available.

Suggestion of references to read more about the concept of HL

Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health promotion international, 15(3), 259-267.

Nutbeam, D. (2009). Defining and measuring health literacy: what can we learn from literacy studies?. International journal of public health, 54(5), 303-305.

Nutbeam, D., & Muscat, D. M. (2020). Advancing health literacy interventions. In Health Literacy in Clinical Practice and Public Health (pp. 115-127). IOS Press.

Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC public health, 12(1), 1-13.

Line 127 In the rationale, “… specific HL in VLU is poor…(32). This study investigates knowledge and educational needs, but the study does not use a valid and reliable HL instrument to evaluate HL. In fact, the concept is not at all mentioned in this article. Therefore, I do not think this article should be referred to in the rationale.

Method

When reading the description of the five included studies, no one seem to have HL as an outcome measure. Non seem to have valid and reliable instruments to measure HL. Instead included articles have outcome measures of knowledge. The authors need to explain the choice of eligible articles, and if the included articles in fact measures HL or if the measure knowledge after an educational intervention.

The alignment between aim, research questions and result is not clear to me. Also, the categorisation between general and specific HL puzzles me. I expect to read about sufficient, problematic and inadequate levels of HL and this is not mentioned at all in the result.

The result section would be easier to read if there were subheadings, the same as the three research questions.

Discussion may need to be revised after clarification of concepts that are used.

Reviewer #2: ABSTRACT:

The abstract is clear and reflect the findings and conclusions of the review.

BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS:

The background is clear and concise. It establishes the context of the review. The authors might want to consider an update of some of the references – for example, there is new data in estimating venous leg ulcer prevalence/complex wounds prevalence.

The primary research question is clear. The secondary research question addresses the relationship between two variables – I would suggest explaining what kind of relationship.

The methods section is well written. Review is reported in the line with PRISMA ScR. Protocol was published in advance (Weller et al., 2021). The authors have built this scoping review using Levac et al. and have described proposed methods in a Protocol (Weller et al., 2021), however there is a mismatch between the protocol and the manuscript. It relates to the critical appraisal (Stage 5 of Levac et al.). I suggest that authors discuss these differences and explain how/if they have carried out critical appraisal using CASP (as written in the Protocol). This might be important, as the authors have excluded 1 record based on unclear method and 14 records based on unclear/lack of details.

RESULTS:

The studies included were clearly presented. Relevant data was reported in the text and the tables/appendix. There is a mismatch between the Protocol (Weller et al., 2021) and the manuscript (CASP evidence profile table is missing). I would suggest that authors discuss differences.

p10/l210,211 - consider adding details/result of statistic test.

p11/l236 compression adherence/self management?

Tables:

Table 1: Included studies

p20/results column - if this is p value - please add to the result.

p.28/results column - please omit the question (?How much data to pull from this paper) and details of results.

DISCUSSION:

The discussion is well written. The authors have appropriately interpreted the results of the review. They discuss the completeness and applicability evidence.

Limitations:

p12/l273 - It is not clear how/what significant limitation impacted the scoping review - perhaps it is only a language issue (the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow). Scoping review has identified the lack of evidence, which is fine and it emphasised what needs to be done in the future. You could not answer at your research questions in full due to i. lack of evidence and ii. certainty of evidence. Lack of evidence should not be confused with the certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION:

The implications for practice and research are clear and concise, which helps the reader to receive a clear message. The authors are cautious in their implications; however, this matches the certainty of the evidence.

I would suggest considering rephrasing the first sentence - there is a lack of high quality research - there is a general lack of research.

Typographical errors:

p4/l73 - consistent-the, dash instead of hyphen

p5/l91 - delete last bracket

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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. 2023 Jan 18;18(1):e0279368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279368.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 May 2022

Reviewer 1’s comments:

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. I have read it with great interest because I think this is an important topic to investigate.

I have read the manuscript and it puzzles me because it features two concepts (knowledge and health literacy). I think it is important to be distinct with these concepts especially as the purpose of this scoping review was to investigate HL and VLU. The two concepts are not clearly described at this stage. Consider revising aim and result and discussion.

Thank you for these suggestions and feedback, it was helpful. We have amended the manuscript in line with these comments.

Introduction

Describes VLU very well. But the section about HL needs to be elaborated. The authors write about general and specific HL. This way of describing HL is new to me. To my knowledge, HL levels refer to three dimension functional, communicative or critical (Nutbeam, 2009). I wonder if the authors mean generic or disease specific instruments? However, this categorisations or levels need to explained further.

I lack information about the different dimensions in HL: functional, communicative and critical HL or functional/basic, communicative/interactive and critical HL depending on different definitions. Also, a description of what these dimensions entails.

We admit that we did consider splitting the research against these ideas, only not doing so for word count and for the clarity of the paper. This research’s explanation of health literacy in this way was in fact inspired by that same 2009 paper, in which the authors argued that health literacy needs to be understood as “content-specific literacy in a health context.” Nutbeam’s 2000 paper describing these three concepts of function, communication, and critical are described in this paper as “general literacy”, with those domains listed within them. This split is also partially inspired by Bailey et al 2014- on diabetes scales. Bailey splits the scales used in research as general vs specific, and we sought to follow the same pattern.

However, to address this, we have added a few lines explaining general HL against Nutbeam’s 2000, and 2009 papers and our explanation, on lines 100-107.

Bailey SC, Brega AG, Crutchfield TM, Elasy T, Herr H, Kaphingst K, Karter AJ, Moreland-Russell S, Osborn CY, Pignone M, Rothman R. Update on health literacy and diabetes. The Diabetes Educator. 2014 Sep;40(5):581-604.

Further, FHL, C& C HL scale by Ishikawa was first developed and tested in a sample of patients with diabetes. Ishikawas instruments have been translated to different languages and have been tested in different populations (eg. to mention some, office workers, patients with Parkinson, patients with obesity). The original FHL and CC & C HL by Ishikawa was valid and reliable in a group with diabetes. But the questions were not explicitly linked to diabetes (example of one question in FHL scale: Do you think that it is difficult to read health information because the text is difficult to see (even if you have glasses or contact lenses)? Therefore, I wonder if the “etiquette” that it is a disease specific instrument is perhaps not fully correct.

This was an error; the citation should have been Nath et al. and Yamashita 2011. We have corrected this citation.

I lack information on how to measure HL, there are a variety of instruments available.

Suggestion of references to read more about the concept of HL

Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health promotion international, 15(3), 259-267.

Nutbeam, D. (2009). Defining and measuring health literacy: what can we learn from literacy studies?. International journal of public health, 54(5), 303-305.

Nutbeam, D., & Muscat, D. M. (2020). Advancing health literacy interventions. In Health Literacy in Clinical Practice and Public Health (pp. 115-127). IOS Press.

Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC public health, 12(1), 1-13.

We’ve included the requested information and added the suggested citations in the relevant sections.

Line 127 In the rationale, “… specific HL in VLU is poor…(32). This study investigates knowledge and educational needs, but the study does not use a valid and reliable HL instrument to evaluate HL. In fact, the concept is not at all mentioned in this article. Therefore, I do not think this article should be referred to in the rationale.

We have replaced this HL with Health knowledge which might address this.

Method

When reading the description of the five included studies, no one seem to have HL as an outcome measure. Non seem to have valid and reliable instruments to measure HL. Instead included articles have outcome measures of knowledge. The authors need to explain the choice of eligible articles, and if the included articles in fact measures HL or if the measure knowledge after an educational intervention. The alignment between aim, research questions and result is not clear to me. Also, the categorisation between general and specific HL puzzles me. I expect to read about sufficient, problematic and inadequate levels of HL and this is not mentioned at all in the result.

We have modified the aim and questions somewhat to incorporate knowledge, and added a bit of discussion on the issues of knowledge vs HL (lines 88-92). The problem is that the way knowledge is explained in these studies. To give an example, questions on self-care and capacity, and self-efficacy would fall under the ability to navigate one’s environment and use information, which we interpreted as HL. So, we had to make a judgement in many cases as to what the authors of each of the included studies were actually measuring- consensus reached through conversation between the authors.

The result section would be easier to read if there were subheadings, the same as the three research questions.

We have added a bit on the results by splitting into subheadings.

Discussion may need to be revised after clarification of concepts that are used.

We have modified our discussion, reflecting more on our research questions and discussing the limitations of this review.

Reviewer 2’s comments:

ABSTRACT:

The abstract is clear and reflect the findings and conclusions of the review.

BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS:

The background is clear and concise. It establishes the context of the review. The authors might want to consider an update of some of the references – for example, there is new data in estimating venous leg ulcer prevalence/complex wounds prevalence.

Thank you. We have added the most recent studies, estimating global VLU prevalence and describing epidemiological profile of the VLU patients, as well as other studies estimating venous leg ulcer prevalence/complex wounds prevalence.

The primary research question is clear. The secondary research question addresses the relationship between two variables – I would suggest explaining what kind of relationship.

We have added the statement (correlational or experimental).

The methods section is well written. Review is reported in the line with PRISMA ScR. Protocol was published in advance (Weller et al., 2021). The authors have built this scoping review using Levac et al. and have described proposed methods in a Protocol (Weller et al., 2021), however there is a mismatch between the protocol and the manuscript. It relates to the critical appraisal (Stage 5 of Levac et al.). I suggest that authors discuss these differences and explain how/if they have carried out critical appraisal using CASP (as written in the Protocol). This might be important, as the authors have excluded 1 record based on unclear method and 14 records based on unclear/lack of details.

Thank you for your comment. We have clarified that we have excluded 18 studies when assessing full text records. We have included the quality assessment sub-section, where we discussed how we have carried out critical appraisal of the included studies (Pages 12-13).

RESULTS:

The studies included were clearly presented. Relevant data was reported in the text and the tables/appendix. There is a mismatch between the Protocol (Weller et al., 2021) and the manuscript (CASP evidence profile table is missing). I would suggest that authors discuss differences.

We have added a sub-section on the quality assessment. We used CASP for RCTs as we discussed in the protocol, and other relevant critical appraisal tools. The differences between the protocol and the study were discussed.

In the protocol, we stated that we will use CASP to assess the quality of the included studies. However, because of the various study designs of the included studies, we also used other critical appraisal tools recommended for quality assessment of these designs.

DISCUSSION:

The discussion is well written. The authors have appropriately interpreted the results of the review. They discuss the completeness and applicability evidence.

Limitations:

p12/l273 - It is not clear how/what significant limitation impacted the scoping review - perhaps it is only a language issue (the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow). Scoping review has identified the lack of evidence, which is fine and it emphasised what needs to be done in the future. You could not answer at your research questions in full due to i. lack of evidence and ii. certainty of evidence. Lack of evidence should not be confused with the certainty of evidence.

Thank you. We have restructured our Limitations section and clarified the main limitations of our review. These include: 1) subjective evaluation of ‘knowledge’ and ‘health literacy concepts’; 2) ability to address the research question; and 3) deviations from the protocol.

CONCLUSION:

The implications for practice and research are clear and concise, which helps the reader to receive a clear message. The authors are cautious in their implications; however, this matches the certainty of the evidence.

I would suggest considering rephrasing the first sentence - there is a lack of high-quality research - there is a general lack of research.

Thank you for this comment. We’ve removed this.

Typographical errors:

p4/l73 - consistent-the, dash instead of hyphen

p5/l91 - delete last bracket

Corrected

p10/l210,211 - consider adding details/result of statistic test.

p11/l236 compression adherence/self-management?

Added

Tables:

Table 1: Included studies

p20/results column - if this is p value - please add to the result.

p.28/results column - please omit the question (?How much data to pull from this paper) and details of results.

Completed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Health literacy review_Reviewer responses.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dimitri Beeckman

6 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-40133R1How health literacy relates to venous leg ulcer healing: A scoping review.PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Weller,

Dear Carolina 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. All comments have been considered and the manuscript is almost ready for acceptance. There is still one comment from the reviewer (place of quality assessment of reporting) that I think is important and requires the necessary attention. In addition, there are some typographical comments. I am happy to expedite the review when the manuscript is resubmitted and make a final decision ASAP. Therefore, I invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the minor points raised.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Professor Dimitri Beeckman, PhD

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

After a thorough review by the reviewer and by me, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is almost ready for acceptance. There is still one comment made by the reviewer (place of reporting quality assessment) that I think is important and requires the necessary attention. In addition, there are some typographical comments. May I ask you to revise the manuscript and upload a new version. I will be happy to review it myself before accepting the manuscript for publication. It is a very interesting manuscript and I would like to thank you for submitting it to PLOS ONE.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed. However, I suggest that authors consider dividing description of procedures of critical appraisal (add to Methods section) from reporting the quality of evidence (which should stay in Results section).

Typographical errors:

line 92, remove one dot (hold. .)

line 103, add dot after reference (20).

line 106, add dot after reference (17, 20).

line 124, add dot after reference (26).

[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. 2023 Jan 18;18(1):e0279368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279368.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Dec 2022

Dear Professor Dimitri Beeckman,

Thank you for your comments and assistance on this manuscript.

Here, we outline our responses to the letter.

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed. However, I suggest that authors consider dividing description of procedures of critical appraisal (add to Methods section) from reporting the quality of evidence (which should stay in Results section).

Thank you for this comment. We have addressed this by moving those sections into the relevant place, into the methods.

Typographical errors:

line 92, remove one dot (hold. .)

line 103, add dot after reference (20).

line 106, add dot after reference (17, 20).

line 124, add dot after reference (26).

We have addressed all these by making these exact changes.

Attachment

Submitted filename: revisons.docx

Decision Letter 2

Dimitri Beeckman

7 Dec 2022

How health literacy relates to venous leg ulcer healing: A scoping review.

PONE-D-21-40133R2

Dear Dr. Bouguettaya,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Professor Dimitri Beeckman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you very much - this manuscript is now ready for publication. Congratulations.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dimitri Beeckman

6 Jan 2023

PONE-D-21-40133R2

How health literacy relates to venous leg ulcer healing: A scoping review.

Dear Dr. Bouguettaya:

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

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 plosone@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

Professor Dimitri Beeckman

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 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist- for health literacy and VLU healing.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Appendix. Search strings for MEDLINE via Ovid.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Health literacy review_Reviewer responses.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: revisons.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    These data are the result of a review and therefore all research used for the conclusions are available to all.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES