Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36167562›Full record

Observational studyHealth and quality of life outcomes2022

Measuring COVID-19 health literacy: validation of the COVID-19 HL questionnaire in Spain.

María Falcón, Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez, Martina Fernández-Gutiérrez, María Romay-Barja, Pilar Bas-Sarmiento, Maria João Forjaz

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

María FalcónDepartment of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute (IMIB), University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Carmen Rodríguez-BlázquezNational Epidemiology Centre, Carlos III Health Institute, Madrid, Spain.
Martina Fernández-GutiérrezInstitute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz (INIBICA), University Institute of Research in Social Sustainable Development (INDESS), University of Cadiz, Faculty of Nursing, Venus Street, 11207, Algeciras, Cadiz, Spain.
María Romay-BarjaNational Centre of Tropical Medicine, Carlos III Health Institute, Madrid, Spain.
Pilar Bas-SarmientoInstitute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz (INIBICA), University Institute of Research in Social Sustainable Development (INDESS), University of Cadiz, Faculty of Nursing, Venus Street, 11207, Algeciras, Cadiz, Spain. pilar.bas@uca.es.
Maria João ForjazNational Epidemiology Centre, Carlos III Health Institute, Madrid, Spain.
Centro Nacional de Epidemiología · ESBiomedical Research and Innovation Institute of Cadiz · ESCentro Nacional de Medicina Tropical · ESUniversidad de Cádiz · ESUniversidad de Murcia · ES

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III 50CV000577
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health literacy to make informed preventive decisions. A specific COVID-19 health literacy questionnaire (CHL-Q) is included in the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring WHO initiative to conduct behavioral insights studies related to COVID-19. The objective was to assess the psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the COVID-19 Health Literacy Questionnaire (CHL-Q).

methodsData quality, acceptability, internal consistency, and construct and structural validity were analyzed. A Rasch analysis was also performed. This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted on the Spanish general population after the first wave of the pandemic and after the end of the general lockdown by an online survey agency. 1033 participants (inclusion criteria were being 18 years or older and living in Spain), was extracted from a panel of approximately 982,000 participants. The sampling was stratified matching the Spanish general population in terms of age, gender, and area of residence. The CHL-Q includes 9 items and assesses people's knowledge, motivation and competencies to access, understand, evaluate, and apply information about COVID-19 in order to make informed decisions.

resultsCHL-Q index presented a mean of 33.89 (SD = 9.4), and good fit to the Rasch model (χ2(32) = 34.672, p = 0.342, person separation index = 0.77), with ordered thresholds, unidimensionality, item local independence, and no item bias by sex, age or education level. The CHL-Q showed significant different scores by level of education, experience of infection, confusion related to COVID-19 information and adherence to preventive measures. We found a statistically significant correlation between the CHL-Q index and the total number of preventive measures adopted, COVID-19 knowledge, and information seeking behaviour. The Cronbach´s alpha was 0.87 and the item total corrected correlation, 0.49-0.68.

conclusionsThe Spanish version of CHL-Q is a short, adequate, and reliable instrument to measure COVID-19 related health literacy in the Spanish general population. Measuring the CHL in the population can be useful to evaluate whether public authorities, media and the medical and scientific community have been able to reach the population to offer the information in the terms they need it.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health LiteracyCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSpainSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19Health literacyHealth surveysPsychometricsPublic health

Identifiers

PMID36167562
PMCPMC9514704
OpenAlexW4297338504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.