ArticleBMC public health2025
Development and validation of medication literacy scale for adults: MELSA version II.
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.
- Impact of clinical pharmacist-led behavioural theory-based discharge service to promote medication adherence in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Trial
- Assessment of emergency management capabilities for public health emergencies in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Medication Literacy Scale for Adults (MELSA) version I was previously developed among adults with high educational levels. However, the validity of the tool for the general populations was not established.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the MELSA version II among community-dwelling Turkish adults with both low and high education levels.
methodsAfter the item development and content and face validity testing, test-retest reliability, explanatory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), internal consistency, item response theory approach (Rasch analysis), and hypothesis testing were carried out.
resultsThe interclass correlation coefficient (agreement) was 0.753 between the test and the two weeks retest. Kuder Richardson-20 was 0.89 with a unidimensional structure, according to EFA, CFA, and Rasch analysis. Rasch analysis indicated the person reliability of the 9-item MELSA version II as 0.74. Participants with a high education level and a high level of self-reported reading ability for health-related information had a higher score on MELSA version II (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe 9-item MELSA version II is a web-based scale that is brief, valid, and easy to administer in person using an mobile device. It could be used in different countries and populations after conducting appropriate translation and cultural adaptation.
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.