ArticleBMJ open2026
Prevalence of limited health literacy in blue-collar workers: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth literacy (HL) is defined as the ability to access, understand, evaluate and apply health-related information, which can influence individuals' health outcomes. Blue-collar workers, who often have lower educational attainment and experience language barriers, are at increased risk of limited HL. This systematic review aims to assess the prevalence of limited HL among blue-collar workers to inform the development of appropriate interventions for its improvement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The systematic review will assess the prevalence of limited HL among blue-collar workers. We will include all quantitative study designs using any instrument for measuring general HL. We will exclude studies that focus on specific types of HL and specific health conditions. We have performed a literature search from inception up to 30 April 2025, in the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. We will also search eligible articles from Google Scholar and Open Grey as sources of unpublished studies/gray literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the primary screening of articles, data extraction and quality assessment (using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials and risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposure), with a third individual available to resolve conflicts. We will assess heterogeneity using the χ² test and I² test. If there is sufficient homogeneity, we will pool studies in a meta-analysis or summarise the findings narratively if heterogeneity is too high. We will use a random effects model for our analysis, and we will use funnel plots to evaluate potential publication bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the certainty of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required for this review as there is no primary data collection involving humans. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024597732.
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.