ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2020
Health literacy knowledge and experience survey: Cross-cultural adaptation and the psychometric properties of the Iranian nurse version.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- A scoping review of measures to assess health professionals' competencies related to health literacy.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Online instructor satisfaction measure: Psychometric properties of the Persian version in nursing-midwifery faculty members.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Development and assessment of validity and reliability of a checklist to evaluate the Circulating and Scrub Skills of Operating Room Novices (CSSORN checklist).Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses' knowledge and Experience with Health Literacy can affect the treatment process, improving the quality of health care and effectively communicating with all clients. Evaluation of nurses' knowledge and experience requires a reliable instrument. This study aimed to translate cross-cultural adaptation and testing of Health Literacy Knowledge and Experience Survey (HL-KES). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional methodological study was done during 2018-2019. The study was carried out in two stages: the first phase was designed to obtain a translation and cross-cultural equivalent of the (HL-KES), based on the World Health Organization (2018) and the Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (2011) Guidelines in six steps: preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back translation, back translation review and pretesting and cognitive debriefing of the translated questionnaires. The second phase was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.
resultsThe content validity index and content validity ratio values of all items were >0.62 and 0.79, respectively. Based on the Kuder-Richardson formula, the reliability of the knowledge dimension was reported as 0.7. Furthermore, split-half coefficient for inter-rather reliability and test-retest were 0.76 and 0.96, respectively. The reliability of their experiences with the HL-KES was measured using Cronbach's alpha, in which it was 0.82.
conclusionsThe Persian version of the instrument for assessing nurses' knowledge and experience with health literacy had good validity and reliability. It is recommended that it should be used in educational, clinical environments, and also in future research studies.
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.