Trial reportPublic health nutrition2018
Canadian adaptation of the Newest Vital Sign©, a health literacy assessment tool.
Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized experimental test of a reduced-exposure message for an e-cigarette: comprehension and related misperceptions.Health education research · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Comparing the Usability of the Web-Based 24-h Dietary Recall R24W and ASA24-Canada-2018 among French-Speaking Adults from Québec.Nutrients · 2022Trial
- The efficacy of 'high in' warning labels, health star and traffic light front-of-package labelling: an online randomised control trial.Public health nutrition · 2021Trial
- A randomized controlled trial examining consumers' perceptions and opinions on using different versions of a FoodFlip© smartphone application for delivery of nutrition information.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Trial
- Functional Nutrition Literacy and Healthy and Sustainable Eating Efforts Across Diverse Populations.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Determinants of Health Literacy-Tailored Communication Practices Adoption in French Community Pharmacies: A Theoretical Domains Framework Mixed-Methods Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic disparities in health literacy among American adults: A national survey study.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Low caregiver health literacy is associated with non-urgent pediatric emergency department use.CJEM · 2025Article
- Adaptation of a health literacy screener for computerized, self-administered use by U.S. adults.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Pedagogically Aligned Objectives Create Reliable Automatic Cloze Tests.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2024Article
- A national cross-sectional survey of health literacy of caregivers attending Canadian pediatric emergency departments.PloS one · 2024Article
- A critical narrative questioning the assessment of physical literacy: foster authentic human flourishing across the life course.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Review
- Social Determinants of Health and Informed Consent Comprehension for Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Article
- Validation of the PAM-13 instrument in the Hungarian general population 40 years old and above.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- "I Don't Do Much Without Researching Things Myself": A Mixed Methods Study Exploring the Role of Parent Health Literacy in Autism Services Use for Young Children.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2022Article
- The Conceptual Framework for the International Food Policy Study: Evaluating the Population-Level Impact of Food Policy.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
- Health Literacy, Education, and Internal Consistency of Psychological Scales.Health literacy research and practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Newest Vital Sign© (NVS) was developed in the USA to measure patient health literacy in clinical settings. We adapted the NVS for use in Canada, in English and French, and created a computerized version. Our objective was to evaluate the reliability of the Canadian NVS as a self-administered computerized tool.
designWe used a randomized crossover design with a washout period of 3-4 weeks to compare health literacy scores obtained using the computerized version with scores obtained using the standard interviewer-administered NVS. ANOVA models and McNemar's tests assessed differences in outcomes assessed with each version of the NVS and order effects of the testing.
settingParticipants were recruited from multicultural catchment areas in Ontario and Nova Scotia. SUBJECTS: English- and French-speaking adults aged 18 years or older.
resultsA total of 180 (81 %) of the 222 adults (112 English/110 French) initially recruited completed both the interviewer-NVS and computer-NVS. Scores for those who completed both assessments ranged from 0 to 6 with a mean of 3·63 (sd 2·11) for the computerized NVS and 3·41 (sd 2·21) for the interview-administered NVS. Few (n 18; seven English, eleven French) participants' health literacy assessments differed between the two versions.
conclusionsOverall, the computerized Canadian NVS performed as well as the interviewer-administered version for assessing health literacy levels of English- and French-speaking participants. This Canadian adaptation of the NVS provides Canadian researchers and public health practitioners with an easily administered health literacy assessment tool that can be used to address the needs of Canadians across health literacy levels and ultimately improve health outcomes.
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.