ArticleBMJ open2019
General practitioners' predictions of their own patients' health literacy: a cross-sectional study in Belgium.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Agreement between Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Assessment of Patients' Health Literacy-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Communicating abnormal cervical cancer screening results - a focus group study with general practitioners in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Care Providers' and Parents' Experiences with Implementing the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool (CHAT)-Maternity-Care in the Netherlands: A Mixed Methods Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Exploring Work Absences and Return to Work During Social Transition and Following Gender-Affirming Care, a Mixed-Methods Approach: 'Bridging Support Actors Through Literacy'.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Health Literacy in Pediatric Consultations on Allergy Prevention.Health literacy research and practice · 2024Article
- Development of the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool for maternity care (CHAT-maternity-care): participatory action research.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- 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
- Exploring discordance between Health Literacy Questionnaire scores of people with RMDs and assessment by treating health professionals.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Implementation of health literacy training for clinicians in a federally qualified health center.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Health Literacy Development among People with Chronic Diseases: Advancing the State of the Art and Learning from International Practices.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Patients' Health Literacy in Rehabilitation: Comparison between the Estimation of Patients and Health Care Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Challenges and solutions in communication with patients with low health literacy: Perspectives of healthcare providers.PloS one · 2022Article
- Use of the pictorial Sleepiness and Sleep Apnoea Scale in Chinese patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of health literacy: patient- versus family doctor-reported and associations with self-efficacy and chronic disease.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- The Prevalence of Limited Health Literacy and Its Associated Factors among Elderly Patients Attending an Urban Academic Primary Care Clinic in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo support patients in their disease management, providing information that is adjusted to patients' knowledge and ability to process health information (ie, health literacy) is crucial. To ensure effective health communication, general practitioners (GPs) should be able to identify people with limited health literacy. To this end, (dis)agreement between patients' health literacy and GPs' estimations thereof was examined. Also, characteristics impacting health literacy (dis)agreement were studied.
designCross-sectional survey of general practice patients and GPs undertaken in 2016-17.
settingForty-one general practices in two Dutch-speaking provinces in Belgium.
participantsPatients (18 years of age and older) visiting general practices. Patients were excluded when having severe impairments (physical, mental, sensory).
main outcome measuresPatients' health literacy was assessed with 16-item European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire. GPs indicated estimations on patients' health literacy using a simple scale (inadequate; problematic; adequate). (Dis)agreement between patients' health literacy and GPs' estimations thereof (GPs' estimations being equal to/higher/lower than patients' health literacy) was measured using Kappa statistics. The impact of patient and GP characteristics, including duration of GP-patient relationships, on this (dis)agreement was examined using generalised linear logit model.
resultsHealth literacy of patients (n=1375) was inadequate (n=201; 14.6%), problematic (n=299; 21.7%), adequate (n=875; 63.6%). GPs overestimated the proportion patients with adequate health literacy: adequate (n=1241; 90.3%), problematic (n=130; 9.5%) and inadequate (n=4; 0.3%). Overall, GPs' correct; over-/underestimations of health literacy occurred for, respectively, 60.9%; 34.2%; 4.9% patients, resulting in a slight agreement (κ=0.033). The likelihood for GPs to over-/underestimate patients' health literacy increases with decreasing educational level of patients; and decreasing number of years patients have been consulting with their GP.
conclusionsIntuitively assessing health literacy is difficult. Patients' education, the duration of GP-patient relationships and GPs' gender impact GPs' perceptions of patients' health literacy.
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.