This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
AIMS: To describe the perspectives of individuals receiving haemodialysis regarding health literacy in fluid management. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive approach using directed content analysis of interviews from an explanatory mixed methods study. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted from September 2020 to February 2021 with 28 individuals receiving haemodialysis who had attended a prior quantitative study. A directed qualitative content analysis approach was used to identify categories and subcategories emerging from the data. RESULTS: Six categories of health literacy were identified: (1) active health management, (2) engagement with healthcare providers, (3) understanding and support from healthcare providers, (4) social support, (5) health information literacy and (6) navigation of the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Based on their real-life experience, individuals receiving haemodialysis have unique health literacy needs regarding fluid management. A comprehensive understanding of these unique needs is crucial in creating person-centered interventions to address inadequate fluid restriction. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Interventions to address inadequate fluid restriction should be person-centered, considering each individual's unique health literacy needs. This involves conducting a comprehensive assessment of individuals' health literacy needs, empowering individuals to actively engage in health, engaging the entire support network and facilitating health information literacy in line with individuals' preferences. IMPACT: This study offers detailed insights into the health literacy needs related to fluid management in individuals undergoing haemodialysis. The findings could inform the development of person-centered fluid management strategies for these individuals. REPORTING METHOD: We adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: