ArticlePloS one2020
Disentangling health information appraisal competence: Results from an interdisciplinary scoping review and online consultation among Swiss stakeholders.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Health Literacy among Medical Students: A Systematic Review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- "Is this professionally correct?": understanding the criteria nurses use to evaluate information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Conceptualisation of critical health literacy-insights from Western and East Asian perspectives: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Article
- Strengthening Critical Health Literacy for Health Information Appraisal: An Approach from Argumentation Theory.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
backgroundThe ability to critically appraise health information-often referred to as critical health literacy-is recognized as a crucial component of health literacy. Yet to date, it is not clear what specific abilities are needed to adequately accomplish this task, thereby hindering both its assessment and the development and evaluation of related interventions. By systematically building on past research, this study aimed to operationally define the concept of health information appraisal competence.
methodsWe systematically searched five scholarly databases to identify the conceptualizations and operational definitions of information appraisal in different disciplines. The resulting operationalization was subsequently validated through an online consultation exercise among 85 Swiss stakeholders.
resultsNinety-four publications were included in the review to the point of saturation. We extracted 646 skills, attitudes, and knowledge for health information appraisal. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements, which produced a list of 43 unique statements belonging to six emergent themes or core competences: (1) basic competence, (2) predisposition, (3) identification competence, (4) critical evaluation competence, (5) selection competence, and (6) application competence. The consultation exercise enriched the operationalization of some of the core competences and confirmed the importance of all competences. Most skills, attitudes, and knowledge, however, were assigned low feasibility by the stakeholders.
conclusionsThis study was the first attempt to systematically operationalize health information appraisal competence. From a theoretical perspective, it sheds light on an understudied, health literacy domain, thus contributing to clarity around the concept. From a practical perspective, it provides a strong theoretical basis for the development of a tool to measure health information appraisal competence. This could be used routinely as a screening tool, as an outcome measure for public health interventions, or to identify citizens who are most at risk. Furthermore, it will provide support for the development of future interventions to build health information appraisal competence in the population.
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.