Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30319778›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2018

Characterisation of health literacy strengths and weaknesses among people at metabolic and cardiovascular risk: Validity testing of the Health Literacy Questionnaire.

Xavier Debussche, Victorine Lenclume, Maryvette Balcou-Debussche, Danielle Alakian, Claude Sokolowsky, Delphine Ballet, Gerald R Elsworth, Richard H Osborne, Laetitia Huiart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Developing a validity testing plan for a patient-reported outcome measure in a new context using the argument-based approach to validity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Improving transparency and empowerment for cancer patients by accessing their full online personal medical records.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Health literacy and obesity: A systematic scoping review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Xavier DebusscheService d'Endocrinologie Diabétologie Nutrition, CHU Felix Guyon, Saint-Denis, Réunion, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-4297
Victorine LenclumeCentre d'Investigations Cliniques 1410 INSERM, Reunion University Hospital, Saint-Pierre, Réunion, France.
Maryvette Balcou-DebusscheEA7389 Institut Coopératif Austral pour la Recherche en Education, University of Reunion, Saint-Denis, France.
Danielle AlakianMaison du Diabète Obésité risque Cardiovasculaire (M'DOC), Paris, France.
Claude SokolowskyMaison du Diabète Obésité risque Cardiovasculaire (M'DOC), Paris, France.
Delphine BalletEA7389 Institut Coopératif Austral pour la Recherche en Education, University of Reunion, Saint-Denis, France.
Gerald R ElsworthHealth Systems Improvement Unit, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Richard H OsborneHealth Systems Improvement Unit, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Laetitia HuiartCentre d'Investigations Cliniques 1410 INSERM, Reunion University Hospital, Saint-Pierre, Réunion, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth literacy refers to the ability of individuals to gain access to, use, and understand health information and services in order to maintain a good health. The assessment of health literacy profiles in a population is potentially crucial to respond to health needs. The Health Literacy Questionnaire explores nine dimensions of health literacy and has been shown to display robust psychometric properties. The aim was to test the validity of the multidimensional Health Literacy Questionnaire and to describe the health literacy profiles in a French population at risk of cardiovascular disease.

methodsData were collected using self-administered questionnaires from 175 participants attending health education and support programmes in local associations of patients in Paris. Analysis included scale reliability, confirmatory factor analysis, and health literacy profiles via descriptive statistics.

resultsIn confirmatory factor analysis, the nine-factor structure was close to the original Health Literacy Questionnaire. A nine-factor confirmatory factor analysis model was fitted to the 44 items with no cross-loadings or correlated residuals allowed. Given the restricted nature of the model, the fit was satisfactory: χ

conclusionThe French version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire was shown to be psychometrically robust with good reliability. In the context of France, the 9 scales of Health Literacy Questionnaire allow a thorough assessment of health literacy strengths and weaknesses to respond to health literacy needs and improve the accessibility of health information and services.

Indexed as

cardiovascular riskEpidemiology/public healthFrancehealth literacyvalidity testing

Identifiers

PMID30319778
PMCPMC6154264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.