Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39469254›Full record

ReviewPortuguese journal of public health2023

A Systematic Review of Health Literacy Measurement Instruments in Portugal.

Ana Barros, Helena Santos, Filipe Santos-Silva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Portuguese journal of public health, 2023. 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. Review
  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

3 authors.

Ana Barrosi3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Helena SantosFEP - Faculdade de Economia da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Filipe Santos-Silvai3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Health literacy evaluation is considered a priority issue in the health literacy research field. The complexity of the multiple definitions of health literacy and the diversity of instruments to evaluate health literacy has become a challenge to the establishment of comparisons across different studies. This work aimed to provide a systematic literature review of the existing measurement instruments adapted or developed for different groups of the Portuguese population. Methods: A comprehensive search of digital databases was conducted to systematize and understand the available knowledge about health literacy measurement in Portugal and to identify assessment tools and studies developed. The selection process was based on PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 17 publications were analysed regarding different aspects, which resulted in the identification of 11 different instruments, that were adapted or developed to measure health literacy in different groups of the Portuguese population, mainly adults, adolescents, and young adults. Seven instruments focusing on general health literacy (including e-health), 2 on mental health literacy, and the other 2 on oral health literacy were identified. Discussion/Conclusion: This study presents the first general overview of health literacy measurement in Portugal and clearly shows that to deepen our knowledge of health literacy in the Portuguese population it is essential to broaden the scope and the target of health literacy assessment to have a comprehensive understanding that will allow transforming our reality regarding health and disease.

Indexed as

Health literacyMeasurementPortugal

Identifiers

PMID39469254
PMCPMC11320107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.