ArticleBMC public health2025
Community knowledge of Australia's national preventive health strategy focus areas: a nationally representative survey of 1509 adults.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile some general patterns and trends of health information seeking and literacy in the Australian population are known, there is a need to understand these behaviours and skills specific to the focus areas outlined in the National Preventive Health Strategy (NPHS).
methodsIn response, this study employed a cross-sectional online survey of adults in the Australian general population (n = 1509) to investigate their knowledge and health information seeking behaviour regarding the NPHS' seven focus areas. It also explored primary care practitioners as a preventive health information source. The survey consisted of 135 core items and 15 adaptive items including the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). The degree to which accessing information about a preventive health focus area from one of the three categories of health professional predicted the accuracy of the participant's knowledge about that focus area was determined using logistic regression.
resultsA total of 1,535 complete responses were recorded, 26 of which were removed due to data integrity concerns, resulting in a final sample of n = 1,509. Participants were typically above mid-range for each of the HLQ scales. The sample was broadly representative of the Australian general population. Preventive health knowledge items about cancer screening and prevention were scored accurately by the most participants (85.2%), while the highest number of completely incorrect responses were immunisation (5.3%), alcohol intake (5%) and tobacco and nicotine addiction (4.9%). Participants who provided correct responses to both items about tobacco and nicotine addiction had decreased odds by of having accessed information about tobacco from a medical doctor (aOR 0.30), while those who answered items about immunisation correctly had lower odds of accessing information about immunisation from complementary medicine providers (aOR 0.30). Reporting completely correct responses to alcohol intake items was associated with lower odds of accessing information about alcohol from either medical doctors (aOR 0.46) or complementary medicine providers (aOR 0.17).
conclusionsThis research highlights the need for future research to investigate and understand some key issues challenging efforts to optimise effective preventive health initiatives with a view to informing better community health and wellbeing outcomes.
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.