Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Medication literacy is low among patients with cardiovascular diseases, meta-analysis findsMedication literacy low in heart disease patients, review finds

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that medication literacy is low in CVD patients; tailored education and standardized assessments are needed.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed medication literacy levels among patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The analysis included 9,599 patients and used three validated instruments: the Medication Literacy Questionnaire (MLQ), the Medication Literacy Scale in Spanish and English (MedLitRxSE), and the Chinese Medication Literacy Scale for Hypertensive Patients (C-MLSHP).

Pooled mean scores were 4.56 (95% CI 4.36 to 4.77; I²=95.7%) for MLQ, 7.49 (95% CI 6.46 to 8.52; I²=97.7%) for MedLitRxSE, and 24.09 (95% CI 23.72 to 24.45; I²=64.2%) for C-MLSHP. These scores indicate low medication literacy across populations.

The authors note substantial heterogeneity across all instrument subgroups, which limits the generalizability of the pooled estimates. They call for future large-scale, longitudinal studies using standardized assessment tools to elucidate causal relationships, underlying mechanisms, and sources of heterogeneity.

Clinically, the findings underscore the need for individualized patient education, standardized counseling protocols, community-based services, and healthcare provider training. Multilevel interventions grounded in the Health Ecological Model may help improve medication use and inform policy, but causality cannot be inferred from these data.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that many people with cardiovascular disease have low medication literacy, meaning they struggle to understand and use their medicines correctly. The review pooled data from 9,599 patients across multiple studies and measured medication literacy using three different questionnaires.

On the Medication Literacy Questionnaire (MLQ), the average score was 4.56 out of a possible range. On the Medication Literacy Scale in Spanish and English (MedLitRxSE), the average was 7.49. And on the Chinese Medication Literacy Scale for Hypertensive Patients (C-MLSHP), the average was 24.09. These scores suggest that many patients do not fully understand their medications.

The researchers note that there was substantial variation between studies, which makes the results less precise. They call for future large-scale, long-term studies using standardized tools to better understand the problem and what causes it.

This review does not prove that low medication literacy causes worse health outcomes, but it highlights an important area for improvement. Patients and healthcare providers can work together to ensure clear communication about medications.

What this means for you:
Many heart disease patients have low medication literacy, but more research is needed to understand why.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundAs an important domain of health literacy, medication literacy plays a critical role in ensuring the safe and effective use of medicines, especially among individuals with Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs). Nevertheless, evidence regarding the overall level of medication literacy and the factors influencing it in this population remains limited. This study aimed to systematically evaluate medication literacy levels among patients with CVDs and to identify associated factors based on the Health Ecological Model (HEM).MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and the Vertically Integrated Projects database (VIP) for studies published in English or Chinese from database inception to 30 December 2025. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and analysis. Mean medication literacy scores and corresponding effect sizes were pooled using meta-analysis in Stata 18.0. Random-effects models were applied for all analyses due to substantial heterogeneity across studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were also assessed.ResultsA total of 34 studies involving 9,599 patients were included. Of these, 30 studies reported medication literacy levels. Given the substantial heterogeneity observed across all instrument subgroups, random-effects models were applied for pooling. The pooled mean scores were as follows: the Medication Literacy Questionnaire (MLQ): 4.56 [95% CI (4.36, 4.77), I2 = 95.7%]; the Medication Literacy Scale in Spanish and English (MedLitRxSE): 7.49 [95% CI (6.46, 8.52), I2 = 97.7%]; and the Chinese Medication Literacy Scale for Hypertensive Patients (C-MLSHP): 24.09 [95% CI (23.72, 24.45), I2 = 64.2%]. Twenty-four studies reported factors associated with medication literacy. Significant factors included age, department of hospitalization, comorbid hypertension, and number of discharge medications (personal traits); self-efficacy (psychological and behavioral characteristics); social support (social networking); income level and educational attainment (work and living conditions); and receipt of medication education (policy and environmental factors).ConclusionMedication literacy among patients with CVDs remains suboptimal and is influenced by multidimensional factors. Individualized patient education, standardized counseling protocols, community-based services, and healthcare provider training are urgently needed. Multilevel interventions grounded in the HEM hold promise for improving medication use and informing policy development. Future large-scale, longitudinal studies employing standardized assessment tools are needed to elucidate causal relationships, underlying mechanisms, and sources of heterogeneity.Systematic Review RegistrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251208289, available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251208289).
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.