ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Health literacy and loneliness among physically inactive Danes aged 18-65: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Both physical inactivity and loneliness are public health threats bringing huge costs to society and quality of life. The two health challenges often co-exist, suggesting physically inactive and lonely individuals to be a high-risk group. Health literacy as a concept is understood as a modifiable health determinant, and it has been proposed for promoting equity in future health promotion. Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the association between health literacy and loneliness among physically inactive adults. Methods: A representative sample of 6,196 Danish adults, aged 18-65 years, was invited to a screening on a set of health outcomes for physical inactivity, which was based on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form. A total of 1,033 adults were classified as physically inactive and therefore received the full questionnaire screening on a set of different health outcomes including the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) and the Three-Item Loneliness Scale (T-ILS). Two statistical approaches were applied: (1) health literacy expressed as nine different continuous variables corresponding to the domains of HLQ using logistic regressions analyses to examine the association between health literacy and loneliness; (2) health literacy expressed as nine different binary variables showing proportions of low literacy among lonely versus non-lonely participants. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata/IC version 16.1. Results: Among a sample of 1,010 physically inactive adults, 23.7% felt lonely with a T-ILS score below ≥7. Regression analyses predicted a negative association between health literacy and loneliness in all HLQ domains, after adjusting for gender, age, education, and occupation. Adjusted ORs ranged from 0.21 (95% CI: 0.16; 0.27) to 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57; 0.83) in domains 1-5 and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41; 0.61) to 0.70 (95% CI: 0.55; 0.89) in domains 6-9. A similar pattern was found in the analysis with health literacy as a binary variable as the proportions of low health literacy were the highest among persons with loneliness in all HLQ domains. Conclusion: Even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, a negative association was predicted between health literacy and loneliness in physically inactive adults. This suggests that strategies for improving physical activity among inactive individuals might be more effective if they include a focus on enhancing health literacy and addressing loneliness.
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.