SynthesisBMC medical education2025
Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Health Literacy among Medical Students: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research on influencing factors and improvement paths of rational medication literacy among college students: a cross-sectional survey in Zhejiang province.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Heterogeneity in health anxiety among medical students and HPV testing acceptability: the mediating role of eHealth literacy from a person-centered perspective.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited health literacy is a global public health concern linked with increased healthcare expenses and poor health outcomes. Health literacy (HL) is crucial for medical students as patients and future medical practitioners. This systematic review aims to provide a global understanding of the state of HL among medical students, identify strengths and weaknesses across HL domains, and determine different variables associated with HL.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42024608968. The CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for cross-sectional studies that reported the HL of medical students from 2013 to February 2025. The AXIS tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The results are presented using narrative analysis.
resultsThirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies collectively included 3,647 medical students, approximately 44% female and 29% male. Different HL assessment tools were used, resulting in variations in the findings. Medical students demonstrated proficiency in locating and comprehending health information but faced challenges in managing their own health, feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers, and appraising health information. Symptoms of depression, social support, and the amount of time spent using the internet were associated with HL. All studies included revealed a very low risk of bias.
conclusionThe health literacy of medical students ranged from moderate to high. The strengths identified both in the general context and in the digital context were finding and understanding health information. However, areas needing improvement were identified in its practical application, particularly in self-management and critical appraisal of health information. These findings indicate the potential benefit of incorporating targeted health literacy training into medical education to enhance critical thinking, practical application, and communication skills in support of patient-centered care.
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.