ArticleNutrients2022
The Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument for Brazilians, NLit-Br: An Exploratory Cross-Cultural Validity Study.
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing the power of date fruit: nutritional, bioactive, and functional roles in sustainable nutrition.Biodegradation · 2026Review
- The Development, Applications, and Future Directions of Nutritional Literacy Scales: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Developing subscale threshold scores for the nutrition literacy assessment instrument (NLit).Discover public health · 2025Article
- Nutritional literacy and its influence on healthy lifestyle behavior and willingness to consume healthy food brands.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Adaptation and Validation of the S-NutLit Scale to Assess Nutritional Literacy in the Peruvian Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Predicting willingness to consume healthy brand foods using the theory of planned behavior: the role of nutritional literacy.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to test the validity of the cross-cultural adapted Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument for Brazilians (NLit-Br). An observational cross-sectional study was performed in chronic disease clinics from the Brazilian Public Health System in two phases: (1) linguistic and cultural adaptation and (2) validity testing. Six registered dietitians and thirty adult patients diagnosed with at least one chronic disease participated in the study using the nutrition literacy assessment instrument (NLit-Br) and the short assessment of health literacy for Portuguese-speaking adults (SAHLPA-18). Sample descriptive variables: age, sex, race, income, education, and occupation. To adapt the instrument to the Brazilian Portuguese and Brazilian culture, we tested cognitive interviewing and the Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) with a group of dietitians and patients. To test the tool’s validity, health literacy (SAHLPA-18) was used as a construct that presents similarities and differences with nutrition literacy (NLit-Br). The correlation of NLit-Br and the SAHLPA-18 was tested (Spearman’s Rho). Internal consistency was measured by Kuder−Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20). The NLit-Br content validity (S-CVI = 0.85) and internal consistency (KR-20 = 0.868) were confirmed. Additionally, NLit-Br presented a significant and robust correlation with SAHLPA-18 (r = 0.665, p < 0.001). Therefore, the NLit-Br was considered a linguistic, cultural, and valid instrument to measure Brazilian’s nutrition literacy.
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.