Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29357867›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2018

Generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature.

Orkan Okan, Ester Lopes, Torsten Michael Bollweg, Janine Bröder, Melanie Messer, Dirk Bruland, Emma Bond, Graça S Carvalho, Kristine Sørensen, Luis Saboga-Nunes and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
35.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 197 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. eHealth Literacy Assessment Instruments: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Measuring health literacy: methods and tools for assessing general health literacy in adults].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review

19 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

17 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Orkan OkanFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany. orkan.okan@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID 0000-0003-1714-4783
Ester LopesFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Torsten Michael BollwegFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Janine BröderFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Melanie MesserSchool of Public Health, Public Health Nursing & Health Science Research, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Dirk BrulandFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Emma BondUniversity of Suffolk, Ipswich, England, UK.
Graça S CarvalhoCIEC, Institute of Education, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Kristine SørensenGlobal Health Literacy Academy, Urmond, The Netherlands.
Luis Saboga-NunesCIESP, National School of Public Health, ISAMB (FMUL), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Diane Levin-ZamirSchool of Public Health, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Diana SahraiSchool of Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Northwestern Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland.
Uwe H BittlingmayerUniversity of Education, Freiburg, i.Br, Germany.
Jürgen M PelikanAustria & Institute for Public Health, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Malcolm ThomasSchool of Education, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales.
Ullrich BauerFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Paulo PinheiroFaculty of Educational Science, Centre for Prevention and Intervention in Childhood and Adolescents (CPI), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, NRW, Germany.
Bielefeld University · DEAberystwyth University · GBClalit Health Services · ILFHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts · CHUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PTUniversity of Education Freiburg · DEUniversity of Minho · PTUniversity of Suffolk · GBUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01EL1424A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth literacy is an important health promotion concern and recently children and adolescents have been the focus of increased academic attention. To assess the health literacy of this population, researchers have been focussing on developing instruments to measure their health literacy. Compared to the wider availability of instruments for adults, only a few tools are known for younger age groups. The objective of this study is to systematically review the field of generic child and adolescent health literacy measurement instruments that are currently available.

methodA systematic literature search was undertaken in five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycNET, ERIC, and FIS) on articles published between January 1990 and July 2015, addressing children and adolescents ≤18 years old. Eligible articles were analysed, data was extracted, and synthesised according to review objectives.

resultsFifteen generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents were identified. All, except two, are self-administered instruments. Seven are objective measures (performance-based tests), seven are subjective measures (self-reporting), and one uses a mixed-method measurement. Most instruments applied a broad and multidimensional understanding of health literacy. The instruments were developed in eight different countries, with most tools originating in the United States (n = 6). Among the instruments, 31 different components related to health literacy were identified. Accordingly, the studies exhibit a variety of implicit or explicit conceptual and operational definitions, and most instruments have been used in schools and other educational contexts. While the youngest age group studied was 7-year-old children within a parent-child study, there is only one instrument specifically designed for primary school children and none for early years.

conclusionsDespite the reported paucity of health literacy research involving children and adolescents, an unexpected number of health literacy measurement studies in children's populations was found. Most instruments tend to measure their own specific understanding of health literacy and not all provide sufficient conceptual information. To advance health literacy instruments, a much more standardised approach is necessary including improved reporting on the development and validation processes. Further research is required to improve health literacy instruments for children and adolescents and to provide knowledge to inform effective interventions.

Indexed as

Health LiteracySurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentChildHumansAdolescentsAssessmentChildrenHealth literacyInstrumentLiterature reviewMeasurement

Identifiers

PMID29357867
PMCPMC5778701
OpenAlexW2787129873

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.