ArticleBMC public health2025
Health literacy disparities in South Korea: insights from a latent profile analysis.
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.
- Unmet healthcare needs among adults with disabilities in South Korea: a nationally representative analysis using the behavioral model.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Co-creating an action to promote health literacy among parents with immigrant backgrounds.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Patterns and associated factors of health literacy among residents aged 15-69 in Zhejiang, China: a latent profile analysis.Frontiers in public health · 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
backgroundHealth literacy has been empirically linked to overall health outcomes. Existing interventions generally employ a variable-centred approach, often neglecting the cumulative impact of various factors and the ways different groups interact with health information. We aimed to explore health literacy in the general population of South Korea by identifying and characterising distinct health literacy profiles using latent profile analysis.
methodsA cross-sectional design was utilised, analysing health literacy data from the second wave of the Korea Health Panel Survey (collected between March and July 2021) with responses from 9,509 adults. Health literacy was assessed in the domains of health management, disease prevention, and health promotion using the 16-item European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire. Latent profile analysis was used to identify health literacy profiles, and multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to examine sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with profile membership.
resultsLatent profile analysis revealed three distinct health literacy groups: low (27.91%), moderate (63.51%), and high (8.58%). A social gradient was observed, with disparities in age, education, income, and residence observed across the groups. Membership in the low health literacy group was associated with being older, disability, and chronic disease-populations with heightened healthcare needs.
conclusionsThe findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to address the unique challenges faced by populations with low health literacy in a universal health coverage system such as that of South Korea. By identifying those at highest risk for low HLit and targeting policy measures accordingly, healthcare systems can allocate resources more effectively and make health information genuinely accessible for all. In doing so, such strategies can ultimately help mitigate the disparities highlighted in this study. These insights provide a foundation for policies aimed at promoting health equity through focused health literacy initiatives.
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.