ArticleBMC health services research2025
Development and validation of a new comprehensive measurement tool for health insurance literacy.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth insurance literacy (HIL) reflects individuals' ability to understand, select, and effectively use health insurance, impacting healthcare access and utilization. Existing measurement tools often lack comprehensiveness or contextual relevance. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive questionnaire for measuring HIL, encompassing all recognized dimensions and expanding upon the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), while also adapting it to the specific cultural and national context, using Israel as a case study and proof of concept.
methodsA multi-phase methodology was employed to develop a comprehensive HIL questionnaire, including an extensive literature review, expert consultations, and iterative pilot testing to ensure cultural and contextual relevance. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability testing were conducted using data from a representative sample of 1,012 adults to validate its psychometric properties.
resultsA 75-item questionnaire was designed, covering four domains: confidence and behavior in choosing and using health insurance (HILM), self-report confidence in understanding of key insurance concepts, objective knowledge assessment, and self-assessment of HIL. The questionnaire employs a combination of Likert-type scales and binary scoring for objective knowledge items. EFA confirmed a robust multidimensional structure. The final model accounted for 61% of the variance in the confidence and behavior domains and 57% in the concept domain, while the objective knowledge domain showed less definitive factor loadings. Internal consistency was high across all domains (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80-0.95), and concurrent and convergent validity analyses demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with external measures of understanding and self-assessed knowledge, supporting its psychometric robustness.
conclusionsThis validated questionnaire presents a robust, culturally adapted measure of HIL, integrating both objective knowledge and subjective confidence, offering insights into the multidimensional nature of HIL. It provides critical insights for policymakers and educators aiming to enhance public understanding and effective use of health insurance, setting the stage for targeted interventions and broader international applications.
trial registrationNot 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.