ArticleBMC public health2025
Health literacy of the higher education community in a European country: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy is a dynamic and multidimensional concept. Examining health literacy among higher education students and teachers is crucial for promoting informed health decisions and encouraging healthier behaviors. Our study aimed to measure health literacy among higher education students and teachers, assess the impact of sociodemographic variables, and compare health literacy levels between these groups.
methodsThis study is a Portuguese Academic Health Literacy Network (RALS) project. Data were collected via a questionnaire, including the HLS-EU-Q16 and sociodemographic and health information-seeking behavior items. The statistical analyses involved descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. The executive boards of the participating universities and polytechnic institutes were initially informed about the objectives of the study and the prior approval obtained from an ethics committee. We then requested that the institutions use their official email databases to distribute invitations to students and teachers to complete the online questionnaire.
resultsThe sample consisted of 5,798 students and 1,823 teachers. The majority were women, with students predominantly aged 20-30 years and teachers mostly over 40 years. Compared with students, teachers presented higher health literacy levels (p < 0.001). Specifically, 45.0% of the students and 31.5% of the teachers had inadequate or problematic health literacy. Graduate students and PhD-holding teachers had superior literacy scores (p < 0.001). Economic sufficiency (highest OR: students 2.708; teachers 3.310) and self-health perception positively influenced health literacy (highest OR: students 1.974; teachers 2.284), whereas nonhealthy fields decreased the likelihood of positive health literacy (lowest OR: students 0.583; teachers 0.456). For students, age and educational level were significant factors for positive literacy levels, whereas for teachers, professional background in health was key. Sex and chronic disease presence were not significant for either group.
conclusionsThe study highlights a meaningful portion of students with inadequate health literacy (45%). Socioeconomic factors, including education and economic resources, significantly influence health literacy. Additionally, involvement in health-related fields and better self-assessed health correlate with higher health literacy. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions and training to enhance health literacy across the academic community.
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.