Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39780076›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Community knowledge of Australia's national preventive health strategy focus areas: a nationally representative survey of 1509 adults.

Amie Steel, Hope Foley, Jon Adams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Amie SteelSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 8, Building 10, 235-253 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Amie.steel@uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6643-9444
Hope FoleySchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 8, Building 10, 235-253 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4901-8300
Jon AdamsSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 8, Building 10, 235-253 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9901-5717

Funding

Australian Research Council FT220100610
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyPreventive Health ServicesAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultComplementary therapiesHealth literacyHealth promotionPreventive healthPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID39780076
PMCPMC11716061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.