Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25917656›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2015

Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.

Eric S Kiechle, Stacy Cooper Bailey, Laurie A Hedlund, Anthony J Viera, Stacey L Sheridan

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Health Literacy in Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Health literacy and vaccination: A systematic review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Measuring health literacy: methods and tools for assessing general health literacy in adults].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eric S KiechleProgram on Health Care and Prevention, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Stacy Cooper BaileyDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Laurie A HedlundHealth Literacy and Learning Program, Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Anthony J VieraProgram on Health Care and Prevention, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Stacey L SheridanProgram on Health Care and Prevention, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. stacey_sheridan@med.unc.edu.

Funding

UNC Center for Diabetes Translation Research to Reduce Health DisparitiesP30DK093002 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVIS, RICHARD M · 2011 to 2015
$3.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK093002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth literacy (HL) and numeracy are measured by one of two methods: performance on objective tests or self-report of one's skills. Whether results from these methods differ in their relationship to health outcomes or use of health services is unknown.

methodsWe performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate articles that measured both performance-based and self-reported HL or numeracy and examined their relationship to health outcomes or health service use. To identify studies, we started with an AHRQ-funded systematic review of HL and health outcomes. We then looked for newer studies by searching MEDLINE from 1 February 2010 to 9 December 2014. We included English language studies meeting pre-specified criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and studies for inclusion and graded study quality. One reviewer abstracted information from included studies while a second checked content for accuracy.

resultsWe identified four "fair" quality studies that met inclusion criteria for our review. Two studies measuring HL found no differences between performance-based and self-reported HL for association with self-reported outcomes (including diabetes, stroke, hypertension) or a physician-completed rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score. However, HL measures were differentially related to a patient-completed health assessment questionnaire and to a patient's ability to interpret their prescription medication name and dose from a medication bottle. Only one study measured numeracy and found no difference between performance-based and self-reported measures of numeracy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization. However, in a moderator analysis from the same study, performance-based and self-reported numeracy were differentially related to CRC screening utilization when stratified by certain patient-provider communication behaviors (e.g., the chance to always ask questions and get the support that is needed). DISCUSSION: Most studies found no difference in the relationship between results of performance-based and self-reported measures and outcomes. However, we identified few studies using multiple instruments and/or objective outcomes.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCross-Sectional StudiesHealth LiteracyHumansSelf Reporthealth literacyliteracymeasurementmeasuresnumeracy

Identifiers

PMID25917656
PMCPMC4579206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.