ArticleBMC public health2025
Communicative health literacy with physicians in healthcare services- results of a Hungarian nationwide survey.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Exploring the association between community-level factors and health literacy using multilevel analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Greek Versions of the HLSHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn an efficient and effective healthcare delivery, good communication plays an essential role. The communicative health literacy (COMM-HL) of the patients is an important attribute, but the number of validated COMM-HL assessment tools is low, and they do not cover all aspects of COMM-HL. That's why a new scale has been developed within an international collaboration. Our aims are to check the measurement properties of the Hungarian version of this COMM-HL questionnaire, to describe the COMM-HL of the Hungarian adult population and to investigate its determinants.
methodsA total of 1205 adults completed the telephone interview in 2020 as part of the European Health Literacy Population Survey 2019-2021. The questionnaire included items on sociodemographic data, self-perceived health, social support and COMM-HL. The questionnaire's measurement properties were assessed using Cronbach's alpha, Spearman-Brown, and item-total correlation coefficients, while the construct validity was investigated with principal component (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis. The determinants of the COMM-HL were investigated by linear regression.
resultsBoth the value of Cronbach's alpha and the Spearman-Brown correlation were 0.87. The items belonged to one factor and 62.2% of the total variation was explained by this factor based on the PCA. The fit indices indicated that the one-factor structure of the six-item questionnaire exhibited a good fit for the data. The mean score on the COMM-HL scale was 86.8. The easiest task was explaining health concerns while getting enough time in the consultation was rated as the most difficult one. COMM-HL was lower among females, while it was higher among people aged 66-75 years (compared with 18-25 years), those with greater social support and those without financial deprivation.
conclusionsThe questionnaire can be characterized with good internal consistency and the structure of the COMM-HL questionnaire was best explained as a one factor model. In consultations with patients, the effectiveness of communication should be improved, so that patients do not feel that there is not enough time for consultation. At-risk groups with low COMM-HL need special attention during the interactions and the role of social support has to be clarified, too.
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.