ArticleBMC public health2026
Validity and reliability of the Bangla version of the European health literacy survey questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16) for university students.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy (HL) is the capacity to get, understand, assess, and use health information to prevent disease and improve health in day-to-day living. The study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Bangla version of the short form of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16) for university students.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2023 to August 2023. A sample of 948 respondents was selected from three universities in Bangladesh (Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka University, and Ahshanullah University of Science and Technology) using a convenience sampling technique. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data from the respondents. IBM SPSS statistical software, version 25, and AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure) were used to analyze the data. Scale’s validity and reliability were examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and confirmatory factor analysis, respectively. The chi-square test was used to compare different variables. The level of significance is 0.05.
resultsThe Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient was 0.826, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was statistically significant (χ² = 3064.93, df = 120, p < 0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the three-factor model provided a good fit to the data, yielding better goodness-of-fit outcomes for the Bangla HLS-Q16 (GFI = 0.965, CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.906, and RMSEA = 0.044) compared to a one-factor model. For the whole scale, Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.808 within the acceptable limit. All domains had satisfactory internal consistency (Health Care = 0.71, Disease Prevention = 0.70, and Health Promotion = 0.70). In addition, the item-total correlation coefficient varies from r = 0.313 to r = 0.480. All correlations were significant, indicating that each item contributes to the scale score.
conclusionThe HLS-Q16 Bangla version is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating health literacy.
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.