Table 1

Study eligibility criteria according to the PICOS framework

PopulationThe study recruited participants with established CAD (cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, acute MI, acute coronary syndrome), or if results were reported separately for participants with CAD when the study sample included other clinical groups.
Intervention(s)All interventions that fit the conceptual model of health literacy adopted for this review. The intervention was described as a ‘health literacy intervention’ by the study authors; the authors examined whether the intervention was effective in people with low versus high health literacy; or the intervention matched the health literacy definition of supporting people to find, understand and use information through at least one of the mechanisms shown in the conceptual model in figure 1: building social support for health; empowering people with lower health literacy; improving interaction between patients and the health system; improving the health literacy capacities of health professionals; facilitating access and appropriate use of health services.
ComparisonAny comparison, that is, an alternative intervention, usual care, or no care.
Outcome(s)Participant outcomes relating to changes in health literacy, health behaviours (eg, physical exercise, appropriate use of health services) or clinical health outcomes (eg, hospital admissions, depression).
Study typesThe study investigated the effect of an intervention, in a controlled (randomised, quasi-randomised or non-randomised) or uncontrolled (eg, before and after comparison) study design.
  • CAD, coronary artery disease; MI, myocardial infarction; PICOS, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study.