ArticleHealth promotion international2026
A scoping review of measures to assess health professionals' competencies related to health literacy.
Article in Health promotion international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health literacy competencies among future healthcare providers: a cross-sectional study of preclinical medical students using TSOY-32.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Clear Conversations: a mixed methods evaluation of a verbal health literacy initiative for health service providers.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Beyond clinical skills: reconceptualizing public health literacy as a core competency in nursing education-a 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health professionals play an important role in addressing health literacy and ensuring that health systems and information are easy to understand, access, and navigate. We conducted a scoping review to identify and describe measures and tools that assess health professionals' health literacy competency related to knowledge, skills, practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioural intentions. Electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus were searched in August 2023 and updated in November 2024. Articles were eligible if they included a measure of health professionals' knowledge, skills, and competencies related to health literacy. We included quantitative studies conducted in all clinical settings and all study types. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. The relevant data were extracted and narratively synthesized. In total, 128 articles were identified. We identified 88 unique measures to assess health professionals' health literacy competencies, which were applied across a range of health professional contexts. Overall 59% (n = 76) of tools were purpose-built and used only once. The most frequently assessed domain of health literacy competency was performance-based knowledge, assessed by 45 unique measures. Thirty-seven unique measures reported some form of validity and/or reliability testing, however, of these measures only 16% (n = 6) examined construct validity. This review provides a comprehensive overview of existing measures and highlights the need for rigorous and externally valid tools that are more closely aligned with health literacy competency frameworks.
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.