Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33109429›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2021

Health literacy in the general population in the context of epidemic or pandemic coronavirus outbreak situations: Rapid scoping review.

Uwe Matterne, Nina Egger, Jana Tempes, Christina Tischer, Jonas Lander, Marie-Luise Dierks, Eva-Maria Bitzer, Christian Apfelbacher

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Uwe MatterneInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto Von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany. Electronic address: uwe.matterne@med.ovgu.de.
Nina EggerDepartment of Public Health and Health Education, Freiburg University of Education, Freiburg, Germany.
Jana TempesDepartment of Public Health and Health Education, Freiburg University of Education, Freiburg, Germany.
Christina TischerInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto Von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany.
Jonas LanderInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Marie-Luise DierksInstitute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Eva-Maria BitzerDepartment of Public Health and Health Education, Freiburg University of Education, Freiburg, Germany.
Christian ApfelbacherInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto Von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany; Family Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this rapid scoping review, for which only studies from the general population were considered, was to describe the extent of existing research on HL in the context of previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2).

methodsWe searched major databases and included publications of quantitative and qualitative studies in English and German on any type of research on the functional, critical and communicative domains of HL conducted in the context of the three outbreaks in the general population. We extracted and tabulated relevant data and narratively reported where and when the study was conducted, the design and method used, and how HL was measured.

results72 studies were included. Three investigated HL or explicitly referred to the concept of HL, 14 were guided by health behaviour theory. We did not find any study designed to develop or psychometrically evaluate pandemic/epidemic HL instruments, or relate pandemic/epidemic or general HL to a pandemic/epidemic outcome, or any controlled intervention study. Type of assessment of the domains of HL varied widely.

conclusionTheory-driven observational studies and interventions, examining whether pandemic-related HL can be improved are needed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The development and validation of instruments that measure pandemic-related HL is desirable.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2CoronavirusEpidemicHealth literacyPandemicScoping review

Identifiers

PMID33109429
PMCPMC7547635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.