Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38515114›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2024

Efficacy of health literacy interventions aimed to improve health gains of higher education students-a systematic review.

Jorge Rosário, Beatriz Raposo, Eunice Santos, Sónia Dias, Ana Rita Pedro

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
24.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jorge RosárioComprehensive Health Research Centre, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal. Jorge.olhoazul@ipbeja.pt.ORCID 0000-0001-9178-3773
Beatriz RaposoNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, CISP, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9819-0249
Eunice SantosComprehensive Health Research Centre, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1943-9246
Sónia DiasNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Comprehensive Health Research Center, CHRC, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5085-0685
Ana Rita PedroNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Comprehensive Health Research Center, CHRC, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9197-7129
Universidade Nova de Lisboa · PTUniversity of Évora · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth literacy (HL) among higher education students is low, making them vulnerable about their health. To reverse this trend, higher education institutions promote HL interventions with various topics and methods. A comprehensive understanding of HL interventions is essential to determine whether these interventions meet the health information needs to improve health outcomes (health gains). The aim of this review was to identify and synthesise evidence on the efficacy of HL interventions implemented in academic settings to improve health outcomes.

methodsA systematic review was performed followed the PRISMA guidelines, protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022369869). A search strategy was performed in the EBSCO Host Web platform, the time limit placed was: 01/01/2017 to 30/09/2022. Eligible studies were those published in peer-reviewed journals and involved higher education students over the age of 18 as the subject of the intervention. Eligible interventions included any interventions evaluated in a study with comparison group that included a pre-post measure of health outcomes, were conducted in an academic setting. To methodology quality of included studies, it was used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. To synthesise results narrative and thematic synthesis was conducted.

resultsA total of 9 articles were included in this review, identified health literacy interventions with an impact on health outcomes. The total studies involved 2902 higher education students. All 9 studies were randomised controlled trials. The synthesised evidence supports the efficacy of interventions that contributed to positive changes in mental health, attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy of condom use, emotional, social, and psychological well being, subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, and habitual sleep efficiency, physical activity, and self-reported servings fried foods. HL interventions were educational or motivational and related to health promotion, disease prevention or healthcare.

conclusionsHL interventions in higher education students can significantly improve health outcomes protecting them from the negative effects of threats for their health. The interventions designed with different strategies are more effective. HL interventions are associated with health benefits on health promotion, disease prevention and healthcare. For the attendance of higher education to be a successful experience, continuity of HL interventions developed in academic settings is necessary.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyStudentsHealth PromotionHumansUniversitiesHealth gainsHealth literacyHeath literacy interventionsHigher education students

Identifiers

PMID38515114
PMCPMC10958870
OpenAlexW4393078516

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.