Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200917›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Assessment Tools for Measuring Health Literacy and Digital Health Literacy in a Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review.

Eline M Dijkman, Wouter W M Ter Brake, Constance H C Drossaert, Carine J M Doggen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Greek Versions of the HLSHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Network Analysis of the HLSJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Eline M DijkmanDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.
Wouter W M Ter BrakeDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0000-2536-3033
Constance H C DrossaertDepartment of Psychology, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.
Carine J M DoggenDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4766-4333

Funding

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development 10040022010001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of (digital) health literacy in the hospital can raise staff awareness and facilitate tailored communication, leading to improved health outcomes. Assessment tools should ideally address multiple domains of health literacy, fit to the complex hospital context and have a short administration time, to enable routine assessment. This review aims to create an overview of tools for measuring (digital) health literacy in hospitals. A search in Scopus, PubMed, WoS and CINAHL, following PRISMA guidelines, generated 7252 hits; 251 studies were included in which 44 assessment tools were used. Most tools (57%) were self-reported and 27% reported an administration time of <5 min. Almost all tools addressed the domain 'understanding' (98%), followed by 'access' (52%), 'apply' (50%), 'appraise' (32%), 'numeracy' (18%), and 'digital' (18%). Only four tools were frequently used: the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults ((S)TOFHLA), the Brief Health Literacy Screener (BHLS), and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). While the NVS and BHLS have a low administration time, they cover only two domains. HLQ covers the most domains: access, understanding, appraise, and apply. None of these four most frequently used tools measured digital skills. This review can guide health professionals in choosing an instrument that is feasible in their daily practice, and measures the required domains.

Indexed as

assessment tooldigital health literacyehealth literacyhealth literacyhospitalinstrument

Identifiers

PMID38200917
PMCPMC10778720

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.