ArticlePloS one2017
Validation of the instrument of health literacy competencies for Chinese-speaking health professionals.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- A health literacy intervention for registered nurses: Development and feasibility testing.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Validation of health literacy competencies for healthcare professionals in Korea: a psychometric evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric validation of a health literacy competency scale for nurses, and its application in a cross-sectional survey: a methodological study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Conceptual Framework of Health-Literate Nursing System: A Proceduralized Grounded Theory Approach.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Associations Between Work-Related Factors, Mental Well-Being, and Health Literacy Sensitivity: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Healthcare Personnel.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2025Article
- How Do Healthcare Professionals Develop the Communication Process to Promote Patients' Health Literacy?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Measuring General Health Literacy in Chinese adults: validation of the HLSBMC public health · 2024Article
- Health literacy competency requirements for health professionals: a Delphi consensus study in Taiwan.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the instrument of health literacy competencies for health professionals.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Professional Responsiveness to Health Literacy: A Scoping Review.Health literacy research and practice · 2022Article
- Competencies of health personnel for the practice of health literacy in Brazil: A Delphi consensus survey.PloS one · 2022Article
- Development and psychometric properties of maternal health literacy inventory in pregnancy.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to illustrate the constructs and test the psychometric properties of an instrument of health literacy competencies (IOHLC) for health professionals. A multi-phase questionnaire development method was used to develop the scale. The categorization of the knowledge and practice domains achieved consensus through a modified Delphi process. To reduce the number of items, the 92-item IOHLC was psychometrically evaluated through internal consistency, Rasch modeling, and two-stage factor analysis. In total, 736 practitioners, including nurses, nurse practitioners, health educators, case managers, and dieticians completed the 92-item IOHLC online from May 2012 to January 2013. The final version of the IOHLC covered 9 knowledge items and 40 skill items containing 9 dimensions, with good model fit, and explaining 72% of total variance. All domains had acceptable internal consistency and discriminant validity. The tool in this study is the first to verify health literacy competencies rigorously. Moreover, through psychometric testing, the 49-item IOHLC demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. The IOHLC may serve as a reference for the theoretical and in-service training of Chinese-speaking individuals' health literacy competencies.
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.