ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Status and influencing factors of dual health literacy in modern medicine and traditional Chinese medicine among Chinese residents.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- Factors associated with Traditional Chinese Medicine use among older adults with chronic diseases in China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Safeguarding traditional Chinese medicine intangible cultural heritage and enabling its potential public health reuse: a theory-informed qualitative study in Jiangsu, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Preparedness for generative AI adoption among Chinese cancer survivors: a multi-center cross-sectional survey study.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual Health Literacy (DHL), integrating modern and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), is crucial for health management in China. However, many struggle with both systems, causing fragmented decisions and poor outcomes. Most studies address only one system, overlooking their interplay. This study bridges the gap by assessing DHL and its key influencing factors to support integrated healthcare. Methods: Based on standardized 2017 questionnaires, this survey assessed health literacy based on modern medicine (HL) and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM-HL) among Chinese residents aged 15 to 69, using sampling via an online Sojump questionnaire. Group differences were assessed using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables, and the chi-square test for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify factors associated with HL, TCM-HL, and DHL. Results: A total of 605 participants (median age: 23.0 years, IQR: 20-45) were surveyed, with the majority being female (69.4%), rural residents (59.8%), or holding junior college or undergraduate education (68.4%). Standard attainment rates were 27.1% for HL, 10.9% for TCM-HL, and 6.8% for DHL, with a strong correlation between HL and TCM-HL (r = 0.81). The lowest attainment was observed in basic medical literacy (13.2%), health skills (15.0%), chronic disease prevention & control (16%) within HL, and healthy lifestyle (0%) and appropriate methods of public health within TCM-HL (3.5%). DHL was higher in suburban and urban areas than in rural areas (13.3 and 9.4% vs. 4.7%; χ Conclusion: Given the strong correlation between HL and TCM-HL, promoting the integrated concept of DHL is essential. The low DHL level underscores the need for targeted support, particularly for rural, less educated and uninsured residents. Efforts should enhance both modern and TCM health strategies, emphasizing health skills, chronic disease prevention and basic medical literacy in HL and healthy lifestyle and appropriate public health approaches in TCM-HL.
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.