ArticleBMC public health2023
Validity and reliability of the arabic version of the HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6 questionnaires.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age-Related Patterns in Health Literacy and Health Information-Seeking Behavior in a Korean Population: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Linking health literacy to malaria prevention and treatment behaviours: evidence from a community-based study in Gabon.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Association Between Health Literacy and Outpatient Expenditure in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Validity and reliability of the Bangla version of the European health literacy survey questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16) for university students.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Do nutrition knowledge and health literacy influence food consumption patterns in Saudi youth aged 18 to 25? An analytical assessment using cross-sectional convenience sample.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health literacy and its correlates among adults surveyed in Kuwait: a venue-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health literacy: psychometric properties of the HLS-EU-Q16 questionnaire in a Peruvian adult population.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Linking health literacy to medication adherence in chronic disease management from a community pharmacy perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A Smartphone App (PRIMI) to Promote Healthy Diet, Physical Activity, and Health Literacy After Childbirth Among Migrant Women: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Validation of the Swedish version of HLS19-Q12: a measurement for general health literacy.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Patterns of health literacy and influencing factors differ by age: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties and factorial structure of the Spanish version of the HLS-EU-Q16 questionary in Venezuelan adults.PloS one · 2025Article
- The validity and reliability of the Slovenian version of the health literacy questionnaire short-form (HLS-EU-Q16) among adults and older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Eating disorders and health literacy in Germany: results from two representative samples of adolescents and adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Validity and reliability of the swedish versions of the HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6 questionnaires.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Projecting National Outpatient Health Expenditures Under Health Literacy Improvement Scenarios: A Simulation Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy is an important social determinant of health and affects the ability to make decisions and take action to manage one's health. The purpose of this study was to psychometrically examine the Arabic versions of HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6 and their response patterns among Arabic-speaking persons in Sweden.
methodsBy convenience sampling from a variety of settings, a total of 335 participants were invited to participate. The participants completed a self-assessment of comprehensive health literacy by answering the Ar-HLS-EU-Q16 questionnaire, also including the six items for Ar-HLS-EU-Q6. Statistical analysis was guided by The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. Floor/ceiling effects, construct, structural and criterion validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency reliability were analysed.
resultsIn total, 320 participants were included in the psychometric evaluation. Mean age was 42.1 (SD 12.5), 63% (n = 199) were females and 53% (n = 169) had at least 10 years of education. No floor or ceiling effect were found for the Ar-HLS-EU-Q16 or Ar-HLS-EU-Q6. For both instruments, construct validity was confirmed in four out of five expected correlations (weak positive correlation to educational level, self-perceived health, and years in Sweden; moderate positive correlation with higher sum score on the Arabic electronic health literacy scale, and strong positive correlation to higher Ar-HLS-EU-Q16/Ar-HLS-EU-Q6). For Ar-HLS-EU-Q16, the principal component analysis resulted in a three-factor model with all items significantly correlating to only one factor. For Ar-HLS-EU-Q6, the principal component analysis supported a one-factor solution. Criterion validity showed poor agreement between the two questionnaires with a Cohen κ 0.58 (p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability showed a substantial agreement, Cohen's κ for Ar-HLS-EU-Q16 and Ar-HLS-EU-Q6 were both 0.89. The internal consistency of both versions was acceptable, Cronbach alpha for Arabic-HLS-EU-Q16 was 0.91 and for Arabic-HLS-EU-Q6, 0.79. Split-half reliability was 0.95 and 0.78, respectively.
conclusionThe Arabic version of HLS-EU-Q16 shows good psychometric properties, validated in a Swedish setting. The findings can further inform and guide future validation studies in other settings worldwide. Furthermore, the results of the present study did not support criterion validity of Ar-HLS-EU-Q6.
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.