Chronic diseases are a major global health burden, contributing to morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Self-care is essential for effective disease management, with health literacy (HL) and digital health literacy (eHL) playing a role in enabling individuals to engage in health-promoting behaviours. However, the relationship between HL and self-care remains inconclusive, necessitating further investigation to clarify its impact.
To synthesise evidence on the association between HL and self-care in chronic diseases and identify mediating and moderating factors influencing this relationship.
A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL, supplemented by manual reference checks and author correspondence.
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, including observational studies and RCTs assessing HL and self-care. Meta-analyses were performed using Fisher's Z transformation. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-E and certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE.
A total of 138 studies were included, with 52 meta-analysed. Higher HL was associated with improved self-care behaviours, including medication adherence, disease monitoring and lifestyle modifications across chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, asthma, coronary artery disease, arthritis and COPD. Psychological (self-efficacy, empowerment), cognitive (disease knowledge, decision-making) and social (healthcare communication, social support) factors mediated this relationship, while distress and depression moderated it. Meta-analysis revealed a moderate positive association between HL and self-care (r = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.26–0.31, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed consistent positive effects across conditions. No significant publication bias was detected (Egger's test, p = 0.294). Risk of bias was high in 62 studies, while certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
HL positively influences self-care in chronic diseases, with its impact shaped by multiple mediators and moderators. Future interventions should integrate tailored education, digital tools and mental health support to enhance HL effectiveness.
PROSPERO (CRD42024488061, registered 20.01.2024).
To classify Italian home care models based on structural characteristics, process factors and stakeholder perceptions.
This is a secondary analysis of the AIDOMUS-IT multicentre cross-sectional study, conducted in Italy between July 2022 and December 2023.
Data were collected via online surveys completed by 33 Local Health Authority Nursing Directors, home care nurses and patients. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to classify different organisational models based on structural and process-related factors. Nurses' and patients' perceptions of care were described for each identified cluster.
The analysis identified three distinct organisational home care models: The ‘multidisciplinary model’, in which nurses reported high dissatisfaction due to organisational complexity and excessive workloads. In the ‘nurse-centred model’, characterised by publicly employed nurses, strong leadership, and a supportive work environment, patients reported high levels of satisfaction. The ‘performance-based model’, which operated with a lower nurse-to-patient ratio, reduced service hours, and greater reliance on external professionals. Nurses in this model reported high job satisfaction but also a greater intention to leave, while patient satisfaction was lower.
This study underscores the importance of leadership, resource management, and a supportive work environment in influencing both job satisfaction and patient outcomes in home care settings.
Policymakers could use these findings to refine care models and improve service delivery.
Limited research has examined the organisational structures of home care services, which are important for professionals' organisational well-being, patient safety, and quality of care. This study identified three distinct organisational home care models that could be used to refine care approaches and improve service delivery.
This study respects the EQUATOR guideline for observational studies (STROBE).
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
To evaluate the effect of mutuality on self-care in people with CHD and the contribution of their caregivers, and whether such relationships can be mediated by self-efficacy.
Secondary analysis of baseline data from a multi-centre longitudinal study.
Patients at the onset of coronary artery disease who underwent angioplasty, along with their caregivers, were included in the sample. Data from 136 patients and 136 caregivers were used for the analysis. Mutuality between patients and caregivers was measured using the Mutuality Scale. Self-care was measured using the Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Index and the Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Index. The actor–partner interdependence mediation models were used to assess the mediating role of self-efficacy for self-care between perceived mutuality and self-care behaviours.
An actor indirect effect was found between patient mutuality and their self-care maintenance, self-care monitoring, and self-care management, through the mediation of their self-efficacy. Caregiver mutuality had a positive indirect effect on their contribution to self-care maintenance, self-care monitoring, and self-care management, through the mediation of their self-efficacy. Caregiver mutuality had a positive indirect effect on patient self-care maintenance and on patient self-care monitoring, through the mediation of patient self-efficacy. All models demonstrated satisfactory fit to the data.
Mutuality between patients and caregivers enhances self-care behaviours in patients with coronary heart disease, and self-efficacy is a crucial mediator in this relationship. Interventions targeting both mutuality and self-efficacy within patient–caregiver dyads may improve self-care outcomes.
We adhered to STROBE guidelines.
Patients and members of the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.