Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40275360›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

Defining, assessing, and implementing organizational health literacy: barriers, facilitators, and tools - a systematic review.

Nicola Pelizzari, Loredana Covolo, Elisabetta Ceretti, Carlotta Fiammenghi, Umberto Gelatti

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

5 authors.

Nicola PelizzariSection of Public Health and Human Sciences, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Viale Europa 11, Brescia, 25121, Italy. nicola.pelizzari@unibs.it.
Loredana CovoloSection of Public Health and Human Sciences, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Viale Europa 11, Brescia, 25121, Italy.
Elisabetta CerettiSection of Public Health and Human Sciences, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Viale Europa 11, Brescia, 25121, Italy.
Carlotta FiammenghiDepartment of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Verona, Lungadige Porta Vittoria, 41, Verona, 37129, Italy.
Umberto GelattiSection of Public Health and Human Sciences, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Viale Europa 11, Brescia, 25121, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrganizational health literacy (OHL) is increasingly recognized as a fundamental aspect of high-quality healthcare delivery, focusing on organizations' roles in enabling patients to access, understand, and use health information effectively. This systematic review synthesizes current research on OHL, focusing on its definitions, assessment tools, implemented practices, outcomes, and the factors influencing successful OHL integration within healthcare settings.

methodsGuided by PRISMA and following a predefined registered protocol (PROSPERO 2024:CRD42024537425), this systematic review analyzed studies from six key databases, using targeted keywords associated with OHL. Eligibility criteria isolated research on OHL tools, practices, and outcomes in healthcare settings. Independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and bias risk analysis. Systematic quality assessment and data extraction were performed to thoroughly evaluate OHL's impact on healthcare.

resultsThis systematic review identified 62 articles, published between 2010 and 2024, from 15 different countries. A notable share (30.6%) aimed to develop, validate, and pilot context-sensitive OHL assessment tools. Other studies included qualitative (24.1%), descriptive (14.6%), case studies (11.29%), cross-sectional (8.06%), mixed methods (8.06%), and quantitative (3.25%) approaches, investigating factors promoting and impeding OHL outcomes. The results highlight a 54.1% increase in studies during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period.

conclusionOHL is instrumental in advancing healthcare systems towards greater accessibility and patient-centeredness. Nevertheless, overcoming the identified implementation barriers is crucial for realizing OHL's full potential in enhancing healthcare equity and efficiency. Strategic efforts are needed to foster organizational support, adapt structural practices, and allocate necessary resources for OHL initiatives to enhance healthcare.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth LiteracyCOVID-19HumansHealth literacyHealth literate healthcare organizationOrganizational health literacy

Identifiers

PMID40275360
PMCPMC12023684

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.