Trial reportFrontiers in public health2023
Revised Chinese resident health literacy scale for the older adults in China: simplified version and initial validity testing.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of key influencing factors of health information literacy in COPD patients: a cross-sectional study using a random forest model.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- [Development of a measure of functional health literacy: application of Item Response Theory].Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Chinese Rural Middle-aged and Elderly Health Literacy Scale.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Exploring the Health Literacy Behavior Patterns of Male Patients Using an Interpretable Method.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop a short version of the Chinese Resident Health Literacy Scale focused on older adults in China, and further assess the reliability and validity of this short version. Methods: The data was from a cross-sectional community-based older adults health survey conducted in 2020. The total of 5,829 older adults were randomly divided into two parts using for the simplification and assessment of the scale, respectively. Item Response Theory (IRT) and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) were used for item analysis and scale simplification. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega were used to assess the reliability and three factors Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess the validity, which were compared to the original version. Moreover, Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA) was used to test the model invariance of the short version across groups of gender, age groups, level of education, and cognitive status. Results: The simplified version consisted of 27 items taken from 50 original items, of them 11 items from the dimension of knowledge and attitudes, 9 items from the dimension of behavior and lifestyle, and 7 items from the dimension of health-related skills. The overall Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega were both 0.87 (95%CI: 0.86-0.88). The goodness-of-fits of CFA in simplified version were still acceptable in CFI, TLI, GFI, and RMSEA, even improved in CFI, TLI, and GFI compared to those of original version. Also, the model was stable and invariant in MCFA across gender, cognitive status, and educational level groups. Conclusion: In this study, we formed a simplified instrument for measuring health literacy focused on older adults in China. This short version might be more suitable for the priority recommendation in extended tracking of the dynamic changes on the levels of health literacy in the whole life cycle in public health settings. Further research might be to identify the cut-off values to distinguish the older adults with different levels of health 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.