ArticleBMC public health2025
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the HLS-EU-Q6 questionnaire.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do patients scheduled for inguinal hernia repair express a preference for the repair technique? What questions do they frequently ask?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Observational
- Association between health literacy and antibiotic-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.BMC public health · 2026Article
- What influences the perceived access to healthcare services? An investigation using Structural Equation Modeling.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The Mediating Role of Treatment Adherence in the Relationship Between Health Literacy and Health Maintenance Efficacy Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.Patient preference and adherence · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy plays an important role in the effectiveness of health services by affecting individuals' ability to access, understand, and use health information. Many people in Turkey have limited health literacy. This study aimed to determine the psychometric validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the HLS-EU-Q6.
methodsThis psychometric study used a cross-sectional design and was conducted with 475 Turkish adults between January and March 2024. The adaptation followed internationally accepted guidelines, including translation, synthesis, back-translation, expert panel review, piloting, and finalization. Content validity was assessed using the Content Validity Index (CVI). The sample was randomly divided into two independent subsamples for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability analyses included Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and item discrimination indices.
resultsIn the EFA group, the mean age was 28.89 ± 9.44 years, and 63.4% were female. The CFA group's mean age was 28.76 ± 10.05 years, and 67.3% were female. According to the TR-HLS-EU-Q6, problematic health literacy was identified in 77.5% of participants in the EFA group and 73.8% in the CFA group. Exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional factor structure with loadings ranging from 0.664 to 0.853. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.61, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.06, TLI = 0.92, GFI = 0.96). Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients were 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, demonstrating high internal consistency. The AVE was 0.59, supporting convergent validity. Discriminant analyses showed significant item discrimination between high- and low-scoring groups (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe Turkish version of HLS-EU-Q6 consistently showed acceptable psychometric reliability and validity characteristics.
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.