Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25418011›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2014

The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review.

Sibel Vildan Altin, Isabelle Finke, Sibylle Kautz-Freimuth, Stephanie Stock

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

132 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of instruments to measure health literacy of patients in emergency departments.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Assessment Tools for Health Literacy among the General Population: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. A Systematic Review of the Prevalence and Associations of Limited Health Literacy in CKD.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2017
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article

72 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sibel Vildan AltinInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Gleuelerstr 176-178 50935, Cologne. sibel.altin@uk-koeln.de.
Isabelle Finke
Sibylle Kautz-Freimuth
Stephanie Stock

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth literacy (HL) is seen as an increasingly relevant issue for global public health and requires a reliable and comprehensive operationalization. By now, there is limited evidence on how the development of tools measuring HL proceeded in recent years and if scholars considered existing methodological guidance when developing an instrument.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of generic measurement tools developed to assess HL by searching PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Knowledge (2009 forward). Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/ full text articles for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Additionally we conducted a reporting quality appraisal according to the survey reporting guideline SURGE.

resultsWe identified 17 articles reporting on the development and validation of 17 instruments measuring health literacy. More than two thirds of all instruments are based on a multidimensional construct of health literacy. Moreover, there is a trend towards a mixed measurement (self-report and direct test) of health literacy with 41% of instruments applying it, though results strongly indicate a weakness of coherence between the underlying constructs measured. Overall, almost every third instrument is based on assessment formats modeled on already existing functional literacy screeners such as the REALM or the TOFHLA and 30% of the included articles do not report on significant reporting features specified in the SURGE guideline.

conclusionsScholars recently developing instruments that measure health literacy mainly comply with recommendations of the academic circle by applying multidimensional constructs and mixing up measurement approaches to capture health literacy comprehensively. Nonetheless, there is still a dependence on assessment formats, rooted in functional literacy measurement contradicting the widespread call for new instruments. All things considered, there is no clear "consensus" on HL measurement but a convergence to more comprehensive tools. Giving attention to this finding can help to offer direction towards the development of comparable and reliable health literacy assessment tools that effectively respond to the informational needs of populations.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyEducational MeasurementHumansSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25418011
PMCPMC4289240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.