ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025
[Professional health literacy. Professional and gender-specific aspects].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 importance of health professionals (HPs) in promoting health literacy (HL) is being increasingly emphasized. This article aims to analyze the professional HL of selected HPs, examine professional and gender-specific differences, and identify the challenges in promoting HL as well as its relationship to organizational and qualification-related conditions.
methodIn May and June 2022, 624 nursing professionals and 297 physicians were surveyed online using a newly developed questionnaire, which measures professional health literacy through 34 items across four key domains (HLS-PROF‑Q). Participants were recruited via two online panels. Scores for professional health literacy (ranging from 0-100) and the perceived difficulties in managing tasks were examined. The analysis of perceived difficulties in promoting HL and associations with organizational and qualification-related conditions was conducted using descriptive and bivariate statistics.
resultsDepending on the domain, HPs achieved an average of 54.0 to 73.8 out of 100 possible points. The tasks in the domains "professional digital HL" and "conveying information and knowledge" were considered the most challenging. Overall differences between the two HP groups were minimal, though some gender-specific differences were observed. Managing tasks involved in promoting HL was positively associated with the organizational and qualification-related conditions examined. DISCUSSION: The results show that professional HL is moderate. However, they also highlight areas for improvement and provide insights into where professional HL can be strengthened as well as which adjustments to organizational and qualification-related conditions are needed.
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.