ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2025
[Professional Health Literacy of General Practitioners - Results of the HLS-PROF].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2025. 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.
- [Professional Health Literacy Among Midwives - Findings from a Standardised Online Survey Conducted in Bavaria].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- Development, content validation and piloting of a questionnaire on how midwives in Germany provide advice on early childhood allergy prevention in a health literacy responsive way.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- Benefits and Barriers to mHealth in Hypertension Care: Qualitative Study With German Health Care Professionals.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- [Professional health literacy. Professional and gender-specific aspects].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo date, there are only a few studies analyzing health professionals' health literacy (HL). Mostly, the focus has been on personal rather than professional HL. To bridge this gap, a new concept and an associated survey instrument have been developed in a three-country consortium. The aim of this article was to examine the professional HL of general practitioners (GPs) in Germany.
methodThe survey instrument used consists of 34 items and assesses subjective difficulties in four dimensions to be addressed in promoting patients' HL: "information and knowledge management", "conveying information and knowledge", "patient-centred communication", "professional digital HL". A total of 297 GPs and internists working in general practice were surveyed online over the summer of 2022. The professional HL (score from 0 to 100) was analyzed descriptively and examined in relation to gender, selected job-related, and organizational characteristics, using multiple linear regression.
resultsDepending on the four areas, GPs achieved approximately half to almost three-quarters of the highest possible score. The dimension "patient-centred communication" was perceived as the easiest, followed by "information and knowledge management", and "conveying information and knowledge". The most challenging dimension was "professional digital HL". According to the multivariate analysis, professional HL shows a relation to gender, organizational framework and training conditions, job duration, and coping with the diversity of digital information. The strength of correlation varies by area and is rather weak in some instances.
conclusionsThe results demonstrate the importance of promoting professional HL of GPs and provide numerous indications of where to start. They also indicate that the regression models should be extended by additional determinants, since the included variables can explain only a small amount of variance.
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.