Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40953873›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Assessment of psychometric properties of instruments for measuring health system literacy: A systematic review study protocol using COSMIN guidelines.

Anh Thu Vo, Lisa Fang, Lixia Yang, Robin Urquhart, Yanqing Yi, Peizhong Peter Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Anh Thu VoMemorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Medicine, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-934X
Lisa FangSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lixia YangDepartment of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Yanqing YiMemorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Medicine, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Peizhong Peter WangMemorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Medicine, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada pwang@mun.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0682-6861

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe healthcare system is complex, involving multiple interactions among individuals, organisations and systems. Many patients, particularly those with limited health system literacy, struggle to navigate it. A reliable instrument is crucial for accurately measuring individuals' navigational abilities. However, a systematic review of psychometric properties of existing instruments for measuring health system literacy has not been conducted. This review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of methodological quality and measurement properties of these instruments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, APA Psyfor, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar from the date the database was created to 14 December 2024. Eligible studies include those published in English and focusing on developing and validating an instrument for measuring the construct of health system literacy in adults aged 18 or older. Two researchers will independently review, select and extract eligible studies, while all members of the research team will be involved in assessing methodological quality and the quality of measurement properties. This systematic review will adhere to the Consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of psychometric properties. We will provide summary tables of study characteristics and instrument characteristics used to measure health system literacy. Measurement properties and their quality will be assessed using the COSMIN standard criteria and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We will also evaluate methodological quality of measurement properties using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not collect original data, so obtaining ethical approval is not applicable. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, which can assist researchers and providers in choosing the appropriate instrument measuring health system literacy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251004362.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyPsychometricsHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicHealth LiteracyPsychometricsSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID40953873
PMCPMC12434790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.