ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2025
Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Health Literacy Instrument for Hispanic and Latino/a/e Communities.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hispanic and Latino/a/e individuals are more likely to have lower levels of health literacy compared to other ethnic and racial groups. Additionally, 32% of this population also has limited English proficiency. There is a need to develop culturally valid instruments in Spanish to assess health literacy in this population. The Health Literacy Skills Instrument Short Form (HLSI-SF) was developed and validated in English by RTI International, but not in Spanish. Our aim was to culturally adapt the HLSI-SF to be used for Hispanic and Latino/a/e individuals living in the United States. We followed the Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of measures for content and linguistic validity. This included two forward-translations, reconciliation, two back-translations, revision and harmonization, cognitive interviews (total of six), revision, external expert review, and final version. We involved an expert panel of health professionals and community representatives throughout the process. The panel (
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.