ArticleBMC medical education2025
Does health literacy education in universities contribute to improving health literacy among young people?
Article in BMC medical education, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe research was conducted to measure the impact of health literacy courses on health literacy.
backgroundStudies to improve the health literacy level of students in health schools, especially dentistry students, are important in terms of strengthening patient-health care professional communication in their professional lives, as well as integrating the health literacy course into the curriculum of other schools.
methodsThis study is a quasi-experimental study that was conducted among first-year students at the Faculty of Dentistry using the health literacy scale and pre-test and post-test applications. The Turkish Health Literacy Scale-32 (THLS-32) was administered as a pre-test during the first week of the health literacy course and as a post-test in the 17th week. Data from 133 students who completed both the pre-test and post-test were evaluated. The data were evaluated using IBM SPSS Statistics 21, and percentage and frequency distributions and standard deviations, were calculated during the statistical analysis. Mean and standard deviation were used for continuous data. Besides, the McNemar-Bowker test and the Paired Samples t Test were used to compare the groups in categorical data. The value of p < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.
resultsOf the research group, 59.4% are female, 98.5% are single, and the average age is 18.6 ± 1.1. According to the pre-test general health literacy results of the research group, 16.6% had adequate (adequate/excellent) health literacy levels. In the post-test, 42.9% had adequate (adequate/excellent) health literacy levels. The average pre-test general health literacy index score for the research group was 28.65 ± 6.07, while the post-test average was 32.18 ± 7.21. The average pre-test general health literacy index score for the female was 28.77 ± 6.24, while the post-test average was 32.13 ± 7.35. The average pre-test general health literacy index score for the males was 28.48 ± 5.86, while the post-test average was 32.27 ± 7.08. There is no statistical difference between the general health literacy averages in terms of gender (p > 0.05). After the post-test, statistically significant results were found in all main and sub-dimension health literacy index scores (p = 0.000). After the post-test, the highest increase occurred in the health literacy category of using health-related information, while the lowest increase occurred in the health literacy category of evaluating health-related information (p = 0.000). The most significant difference between the pre-test and post-test occurred with the question, “Have your health monitored and checked at regular intervals as recommended by your doctor?“, which showed a change of 25.7%.
conclusionThe Health Literacy course was associated with improvements in health literacy. Adding health literacy courses to the university curriculum may be beneficial. When developing the curriculum, the needs and infrastructure of each school should be taken into account. The Health Literacy course can help students make the right health decisions.
trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable.
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.