ArticleBMC public health2025
Psychometric properties of the health literacy questionnaire tested in Vietnamese adults with chronic diseases.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- Translation and cultural adaptation of the health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) in Morocco.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Methodological quality of health literacy instruments used among school children in Asian countries: a systematic review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) is an increasingly used health literacy instrument that has been translated into many languages. The HLQ has 44 items and comprises 9 scales assessing the multidimensional construct of health literacy. This study reports the HLQ reliability and construct validity tested in people with chronic diseases living in Vietnam.
methodsAdults (n = 600) hospitalized with chronic disease in Vietnam completed the HLQ. Floor and ceiling effects, item, and scale difficulty levels were assessed. Generalized linear models with backward modeling techniques were performed to test key variables associated with each HL domain. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) testing nine one-factor models were fitted to test the structure of each scale, and a nine-factor model tested the hypothesized structure of the HLQ, followed by the calculation of scale reliability using Cronbach's alpha.
resultsNo item had floor effects, and only eight items showed ceiling effects. Two scales that had the most difficult tasks to complete (highest difficulty level) were 8 "Ability to find good information" and 9 "Understanding enough to know what to do". Variables associated with health literacy were education, income, age, residential area, main support persons and comorbidity index (associated with 7, 7, 4, 3, 2 and 2 out of 9 scales, respectively). Each HLQ scale demonstrated a robust unidimensional construct with all CFI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA varied from 0 to 0.07. The nine-factor CFA model demonstrated satisfactory fit indices: X2 = 5537.4, 866 df, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI (0.093, 0.097), PCLOSE < 0.001. The highest scores were rated on scales 4 "Social support for health" and 6 "Ability to engage with healthcare providers". The reliability of all nine scales ranged from 0.81 to 0.89.
conclusionsThe Vietnamese version of the HLQ demonstrated psychometrically robust properties with high reliability and satisfactory construct validity indexes. This instrument will enable researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to assess health literacy abilities in Vietnam which could inform improvements in healthcare services and clinician practice.
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.