Search

Background: Early intervention (EI) providers work with parents of children with or who have risk factors of developmental delay or disability through Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many parents in the United States have low health literacy; therefore, EI providers should be aware of and address families' health literacy needs. EI providers need to be health literate themselves to implement evidence-based recommended practices. Objective: This study aimed to measure health literacy levels of interdisciplinary EI providers and investigate associations between health literacy levels and demographic variables. Methods: A survey containing the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) was completed by EI providers working at 10 EI centers in Massachusetts. Scale scores were calculated and compared across demographic variables, including EI job role, age, years of EI experience, and highest education level. Key Results: Of 715 EI providers invited to participate, 376 surveys were completed (52.6% response rate). Most participants were women (92.6%, n = 348), reported race as White (85.4%, n = 321), had a mean age of 43.1 years (standard deviation [SD] 12.9) ranging from 20 to 74 years, and English as their primary language (89.6%, n = 337). EI providers scored the lowest on HLQ Scale 5 “Appraisal of health information” (mean [M] = 2.99 (SD 0.50) [confidence interval (CI) 2.93, 3.04]), and Scale 7 “Navigating the healthcare system” (M = 3.83 (SD 0.58) [CI 3.77, 3.89]). EI providers having stronger health literacy profiles were generally older, with a higher education level, were licensed providers, or had more years of EI work experience. Conclusions: EI providers require adequate health literacy to manage their health needs and to effectively provide services to EI families. Study results may inform future targeted professional development to support improvement of EI providers' health literacy skills, including appraisal of health information and navigation of the health care system. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2022;6(2):e128–e136.] Plain Language Summary: EI providers' health literacy profiles have not been previously investigated. Study results reveal EI providers struggled with health literacy skills of appraising health information and navigating the health care system, which are vital for EI practice. Health Literacy Questionnaire results can inform targeted professional development to improve EI providers' health literacy levels and their clinical practice.

The US National Academy of Medicine released its consensus study for the next decade entitled The Future of Nursing 2020-2030: Charting a Path To Achieve Health Equity (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). This paper examines the report, its implications for nursing globally, its focus on systemic, structural, and institutional racism, and the intersection with climate change and deleterious health consequences. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has led in addressing the critical role of the nursing profession in achieving optimal population health outcomes in the US. Yet, relevance exists for nursing in other global areas. The most recent US report focuses on social determinants of health (SDoH) and explicitly addresses climate change as a looming public health threat. An analysis of the key foci of nursing’s role in climate change amidst the critical role of health equity globally is explicated.

Background: Communication about climate change is critical in addressing the greatest public health challenge of our time. Public health professionals must convey the human implications of climate change and educating populations regarding climate change as a threat to the health and wellbeing of people globally. Effective communication to engage individuals, communities, and populations is critical to debate as we focus on the most urgent public health problem of our time. Objective: Public health professionals are aware of the deleterious health consequences related to climate change; however, key segments of the population are not. This paper addressed key concepts related to climate change communication. Methods: Databases were searched including PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus from 2015 to 2020 to obtain the most recent relevant literature using search terms that included climate change, climate communication, climate action, and climate change engagement. Findings: Climate change communication as viewed through the lens of Six Americas—a national survey that categorized people regarding their beliefs about climate change from those who are Dismissive, Doubtful, Disengaged, Cautious, Concerned, or Alarmed is a valid perspective for engaging populations in climate communication and climate action. Conclusions: Using the framework developed by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, we suggest that adopting this framework from a US perspective to a global perspective and surveying across countries and context is imperative to advance global understanding of the impact of climate change on health.