ArticleInternational journal of nursing knowledge2025
Role of the health literacy assessment in healthcare: Content validation of "Health Literacy Behaviour" nursing outcome.
Article in International journal of nursing knowledge, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovations in Nursing Education, Practice and Research: Emphasising Health Literacy.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Role of the health literacy assessment in healthcare: Content validation of "Health Literacy Behaviour" nursing outcome.International journal of nursing knowledge · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the content of the "Health Literacy Behaviour" nursing outcome (NO).
methodsA content validation study was conducted during 2022. Each indicator was included in the NO, and its response levels were operationally defined. The initial version of each indicator and its response levels were refined and validated through the Delphi method. A panel of health literacy (HL) and nursing taxonomies experts evaluated the content through two content validity indicators. The content validity of the NO and each index was determined by calculating the content validity index (CVI). A qualitative analysis of the recommendations provided by the experts was carried out to improve the understanding of the indicators and their levels.
findingsA total of 108 experts participated in this study. Mostly females with more than 10 years of professional experience. The results demonstrated a high CVI of the indicators and the NO "Health Literacy Behaviour." All indicators achieved excellent (CVI ≥ 0.80) relevance and clarity. The CVI universal average method (CVI-p) of the NO achieved an excellent result of 0.90.
conclusionsThe indicators included in the NO "Health Literacy Behaviour" have content validity. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: These findings provide evidence-based indicators to measure the patient's actions to obtain, process, and understand information about health and disease, interact with the health system, and make informed health decisions. The validation of this NO would identify populations with low HL, allowing the health of this community to be promoted. Health literacy should be a priority objective of health management and policies.
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.