ArticleBMC family practice2015
Development and validation of a brief screener to measure the Health Literacy Responsiveness of Primary Care Practices (HLPC).
Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Organisational health literacy in healthcare in Europe: a content analysis to explore stakeholders perspectives for supporting the adoption of effective strategies and interventions.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Primary Care Organizations Organizational Health Literacy Scales (PCO-OHL Scales): a dual perspective from clients and healthcare providers.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- [Development and evaluation of an assessment tool for organisational health literacy].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- A methodological research for development and psychometric properties of a new Measure to Assess Health Literate Organization (MAHLO-76) in hospital settings.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Exploring the barriers to the development of organizational health literacy in health institutions to meet the needs of older patients from multiple perspectives: a mixed-methods study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Multi-staged development and pilot testing of a self-assessment tool for organizational health literacy.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Psychometric Properties of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) in Patients with Diabetes, Arterial Hypertension and Heart Failure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Which criteria characterize a health literate health care organization? - a scoping review on organizational health literacy.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Understanding and Advancing Organizational Health Literacy Within a Public Health Setting.Health literacy research and practice · 2021Article
- Fostering Health Literacy Responsiveness in a Remote Primary Health Care Setting: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- A Scoping Review on How to Make Hospitals health Literate Healthcare Organizations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Polish Version of the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT).Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
- Dealing with health literacy at the organisational level, French translation and adaptation of the Vienna health literate organisation self-assessment tool.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Organizational Health Literacy: Review of Theories, Frameworks, Guides, and Implementation Issues.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evolving approach of health literate health care organizations (HLHO) receives considerable support from health policy makers. Up to now, there are no performance measures available to assess the application of health literacy strategies by health care professionals in the primary care setting. This paper describes the development and validation of the Health Literate Primary Care Practice screener (HLPC). The screener can be used as a self-assessment tool for primary care organizations (PCO) that aim to elucidate the health literacy responsiveness of their organization.
methodsThe HLPC is a 4-item screener developed in a multi-level process following a theory-driven approach including a literature review, consultations with scientists and cognitive tests with patients in PCO. The screener was applied in a national random sample of N = 1125 adults living in Germany. Item and psychometric properties were analyzed by determining item discrimination and reliability as well as performing a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the instruments unidimensionality. Criterion validity was investigated by performing bivariate correlations between the HLPC score and heath care quality measures.
resultsThe HLPC scale demonstrated good item discrimination and internal consistency (α = 0.86). CFA verified a one-factor structure of the scale and analysis on the criterion validity revealed a significant correlation between the HLPC score and patients satisfaction with the general practitioner, accessibility of the PCO and support in care-coordination received in the PCO.
conclusionsThe HLPC is a valid screener to provide insights in the extent of the utilization of health literacy strategies in primary care practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.