ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2017
Validating Health Literacy and Numeracy Measures in Minority Groups.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education Trial: a Cluster Randomized Trial Addressing Health Communication in Diabetes Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Trial
- Health Literacy by Hispanic Ethnicity and its Association with Healthcare Experiences, Self-rated Health, and Quality of Life.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
- Association between caregiver health literacy and patient characteristics in pediatric new onset diabetes mellitus.Public health · 2025Article
- Health and eHealth Literacy of Patients With Diabetes in Low-Income Countries: Perspective From Guinea and Burkina Faso.JMIR diabetes · 2024Article
- Electronic Health Literacy Among Baby Boomers: A Typology.Health literacy research and practice · 2024Article
- Application of the PAPERS Grading Criteria Within a Rapid Evidence Review to Determine the Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Patient Empowerment Tools.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Medical Doctors Approaches and Understanding of Health Literacy: A Systematic Literature Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Greek medical professionals approaches and understanding of health literacy: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Facilitating Medical Care for Latinx Individuals at Risk for CKD: A Pilot Intervention.Kidney medicine · 2023Article
- Assessing patient-level knowledge of precision medicine in a community health center setting.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Tools to Measure Health Literacy among Adult Hispanic Populations with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Does Health Literacy Reinforce Disease Knowledge Gain? A Prospective Observational Study of Hungarian COPD Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Health Literacy in Multiple Sclerosis patients: A Concept Analysis Using the Evolutionary Method.Journal of caring sciences · 2021Article
- Building a House of Skills-A Study of Functional Health Literacy and Numeracy among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Hungary.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Tools to Measure Health Literacy among US African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Patient education and counseling · 2020Article
- Health Literacy but Not Frailty Predict Self-Care Behaviors in Patients with Heart Failure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundValidation studies of existing health literacy or numeracy tools among racial/ethnic minorities are limited.
objectiveThis study assessed the validity of the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), the Diabetes Numeracy Test (DNT-5), the Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS), and the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) by trait (health literacy or numeracy) and by method (subjective or objective) among non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB), and Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of baseline data from the Partnering to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) study, a clustered randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of a health communication intervention on T2DM outcomes at state Department of Health clinics in middle Tennessee. PRIDE participants with race/ethnicity data available ( KEY
resultsSignificant correlations were observed across all 3 subgroups for the numeracy measures (SNS and DNT-5) and the objective measures (DNT-5 and S-TOFHLA). Nonsignificant correlations were observed among Hispanic participants for the health literacy measures (BHLS and S-TOFHLA, correlation coefficient = 0.13) and among NHB and Hispanic participants for the subjective measures (SNS and BHLS, correlations coefficients = 0.15 and 0.09, respectively). A significant positive correlation was noted between education and each measure across all 3 subgroups.
conclusionsSubjective and health literacy measures demonstrate weaker correlations than objective and numeracy measures, respectively, among minority patients in this study. Our findings highlight the need to further evaluate the appropriateness of these tools for use with minority populations, particularly the BHLS for Hispanic patients.
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.