Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35284617›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2022

Literacy and self-rated health: Analysis of the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults (LISA).

Emma MacDonald, Emmanuelle Arpin, Amélie Quesnel-Vallée

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Emma MacDonaldDepartment of Sociology, McGill University, Leacock Building, Room 717, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2T7, Canada.
Emmanuelle ArpinInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Amélie Quesnel-ValléeDepartment of Sociology, McGill University, Leacock Building, Room 717, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2T7, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between education and health is well-established. The empirical literature finds that individuals with higher levels of education experience lower risks of poor health outcomes compared to individuals with less education. Outstanding to this literature is the examination of a dimension of education - literacy - and its association with health. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between literacy (reading, numeracy) and health (self-reported health). We use data from the 2012 wave of the Canadian Longitudinal International Survey of Adults (LISA). The LISA includes rich information on health, broader sociodemographic characteristics (income, age, sex, etc.) as well as information on literacy skills from the Program for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Using logistic regression, we first reaffirm the association between education and self-reported health. We then find that after controlling for measures of literacy, understood as proficiency in reading and numeracy, the magnitude of effect of education on health is reduced. Skills in literacy reduce the risk of reporting poor health, but only for the older subset of respondents (ages 40-65). Our results suggest that literacy should not be understated in empirical research on education and health, and in fact serve to sharpen our understanding of how education impacts health by drawing attention to indirect pathways.

Indexed as

EducationLife courseLiteracyOlder adultsSelf-reported health

Identifiers

PMID35284617
PMCPMC8914366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.