Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165112›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Definitions and measurement of health literacy in health and medicine research: a systematic review.

Kristin Hjorthaug Urstad, Marit Helen Andersen, Marie Hamilton Larsen, Christine Råheim Borge, Sølvi Helseth, Astrid Klopstad Wahl

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effects of Health Literacy Promotion Programs for Preventing Opisthorchiasis and Cholangiocarcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Impact of educational pamphlet in achalasia care: education as therapy among Pakistani patients.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The parents voice on oral health care from two paediatric oncology units.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Kristin Hjorthaug UrstadDepartment of Quality and Health Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway kristin.h.urstad@uis.no.ORCID 0000-0002-8830-4564
Marit Helen AndersenDepartment of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Marie Hamilton LarsenDepartment of Behavioural Sciences in Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Christine Råheim BorgeDepartment of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sølvi HelsethFaculty of Health Scienes, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Astrid Klopstad WahlDepartment of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe way health literacy is understood (conceptualised) should be closely linked to how it is measured (operationalised). This study aimed to gain insights into how health literacy is defined and measured in current health literacy research and to examine the relationship between health literacy definitions and instruments.

designSystematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published during two randomly selected months (March and October) in 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included articles with a quantitative design that measured health literacy, were peer-reviewed and original, were published in the English language and included a study population older than 16 years. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Six researchers screened the articles for eligibility and extracted the data independently. All health literacy definitions and instruments were considered in relation to category 1 (describing basic reading and writing skills, disease-specific knowledge and practical skills) and category 2 (social health literacy competence and the ability to interpret and critically assess health information). The categories were inspired by Nutbeam's descriptions of the different health literacy levels.

results120 articles were included in the review: 60 within public health and 60 within clinical health. The majority of the articles (n=77) used instruments from category 1. In total, 79 of the studies provided a health literacy definition; of these, 71 were in category 2 and 8 were in category 1. In almost half of the studies (n=38), health literacy was defined in a broad perspective (category 2) but measured with a more narrow focus (category 1).

conclusionDue to the high degree of inconsistency between health literacy definitions and instruments in current health literacy research, there is a risk of missing important information about health literacy considered be important to the initial understanding of the concept recognised in the studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020179699.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyDatabases, FactualHumansgeneral medicine (see internal medicine)public health

Identifiers

PMID35165112
PMCPMC8845180

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.