Can anyone help me interprete OR, 95CI, pvalue from below artcle and tables?
Summary the results less than 200 words ( below are example answer)
Results—Of the 308 patients, 203 were LEP. Rates of understanding were low overall for
follow-up appointment type (56%) and the 3 medication outcomes (category 48%, purpose 55%,
both 41%). In unadjusted analysis, LEP were less likely than EP patients to know appointment
type (50% vs. 66%; p = .01), medication category (45% vs. 54%; p = .05), and medication
category and purpose combined (38% vs. 47%; p = .04), but equally likely to know medication
purpose alone. These results persisted in the adjusted models for medication outcomes: LEP
patients had lower odds of understanding medication category (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42-0.95); and
category/purpose (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.39-0.89).
LEP status and appointment type and medication outcomes
Rates of understanding were low overall for follow-up appointment type (56%) and the 3
medication outcomes (category 48%, purpose 55%, both 41%). In unadjusted analysis, LEP
were less likely than EP participants to know appointment type (50% vs. 66%; p = .01),
medication category (45% vs. 54%; p = .05), and both category and purpose combined (38%
vs. 47%; p = .04), but equally likely to know medication purpose alone (55% vs. 54%; p=.
LEP status remained associated with lower odds of understanding the type of follow-up
appointment (OR 0.56), but was not statistically significant (Table 2). Reporting having
been given instructions about when to seek medical care after discharge was significantly
associated with higher odds of understanding follow-up appointment type.
LEP status remained significantly associated with lower odds of understanding of
medication category (OR 0.63) and of the combined outcome of medication category and
purpose (OR 0.59) in adjusted analyses. There was also a trend toward an association for
medication purpose alone (OR 0.89). For the three medication outcomes, the number of
medications was inversely associated with the odds of understanding, such that with each
additional medication, there was a 10-15% decrease in the odds of understanding for any
medication. Analysis re-categorizing as EP participants who spoke ‘well’ but preferred their
medical care in Spanish or Chinese strengthened, but did not substantially change the results
in Table 2.
Effect of language concordance at discharge, educational attainment in LEP patients
Table 3 demonstrates results of modeling the association of language concordance at
discharge with the appointment type and combined medication category and purpose
outcomes. Notably, those LEP participants who reported that the person communicating
discharge instructions was language concordant had lower odds of understanding than the
EP group for both outcomes. In addition, those reporting a family/friend interpreter at
discharge had lower odds of understanding their medications. Those reporting a hospital
interpreter and those reporting no interpretation were no different from their EP
counterparts. On further examination of the distribution of English proficiency among the
LEP participants, all but one of the participants who reported that they spoke ‘well’ but
preferred their medical care in a non-English language were in the group with no
interpretation at discharge. However, re-categorization of these participants as EP in
sensitivity analysis did not substantially change these results.
Among the sub-group of 203 LEP participants, those with the lowest educational attainment
-elementary school or less -had significantly lower odds of appointment type (OR 0.37, 95%
CI 0.15-0.95) and combined medication category and purpose (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.26-0.94)
understanding compared with those with high school or more education, regardless of
perceived language concordance at discharge.
Karliner, L. S., Auerbach, A., Napoles, A., Schillinger, D., Nickleach, D., & Perez-Stable, E.
J. (2013). Language barriers and understanding of hospital discharge instructions.
Is this sudy Case Control Study? or which design? pls see CASP Checklist: 11 questionsto help you make sense of a Case Control Study
Level of evidence (LOE)
Evidence from a systematic review or meta-analysis of all relevant RCTs (randomized controlled trial) or evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on systematic reviews of RCTs or three or more RCTs of good quality that have similar results.
Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed RCT (e.g. large multi-site RCT).
Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization (i.e. quasi-experimental).
Evidence from well-designed case-control or cohort studies.
Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies (meta-synthesis).
Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study.
Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees.