Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38822965›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Medication Literacy Test for Older Adults: psychometric analysis and standardization of the new instrument.

Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuzza, Adriano Max Moreira Reis, Stephanie Ferreira Botelho, Ana Luiza Pereira da Rocha, Maria Auxiliadora Parreiras Martins, Mariana Martins Gonzaga do Nascimento, Liliana Batista Vieira, Ronara Camila de Souza Groia Veloso, Elizabeth do Nascimento

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Laís Lessa Neiva PantuzzaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Medicamentos e Assistência Farmacêutica, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Adriano Max Moreira ReisFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. amreis@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0017-7338
Stephanie Ferreira BotelhoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Medicamentos e Assistência Farmacêutica, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Ana Luiza Pereira da RochaFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Maria Auxiliadora Parreiras MartinsFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Mariana Martins Gonzaga do NascimentoFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Liliana Batista VieiraFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal de Alfenas, 700 Gabriel Monteiro da Silva St., Centro, Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Ronara Camila de Souza Groia VelosoHospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 110 Professor Alfredo Balena Ave., Santa Efigênia, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Elizabeth do NascimentoDepartamento de Psicologia, Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 6627 Presidente Antônio Carlos Ave., Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 409435/2018-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow medication literacy is prevalent among older adults and is associated with adverse drug events. The Medication Literacy Test for Older Adults (TELUMI) was developed and content validated in a previously published study.

aimTo evaluate the psychometric properties and provide norms for TELUMI scores.

methodThis was a cross-sectional methodological study with older adults selected from the community and from two outpatient services. Descriptive item-analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item response theory (IRT), reliability, and validity analysis with schooling and health literacy were performed to test the psychometric properties of the TELUMI. The classification of the TELUMI scores was performed using percentile norms.

resultsA total of 344 participants, with a mean age of 68.7 years (standard deviation = 6.7), were included; most were female (66.6%), black/brown (61.8%), had low schooling level (60.2%) and low income (55.2%). The EFA pointed to the one-dimensional structure of TELUMI. A three-parameter logistic model was adopted for IRT. All items had an adequate difficulty index. One item had discrimination < 0.65, and three items had an unacceptable guessing index (< 0.35) and were excluded. The 29-item version of TELUMI had excellent internal consistency (KR20 = 0.89). There was a positive and strong association between TELUMI scores and health literacy and education level. The scores were classified as inadequate medication literacy (≤ 10.0 points), medium medication literacy (11-20 points), and adequate medication literacy (≥ 21 points).

conclusionThe results suggest that the 29-item version of TELUMI is psychometrically adequate for measuring medication literacy in older adults.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyPsychometricsAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth literacyMedication literacyOlder adultsValidation study

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.