ArticleBMC public health2026
Development and evaluation of a 15-item health literacy classification model using integrated psychometric approaches in China.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy is a critical determinant of public health. In China, the 56-item national questionnaire limits large-scale implementation due to its length. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a brief health literacy classification model by integrating psychometric evaluation with classification modeling.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study with 19,092 participants in Ningbo, China (2022–2024). The 56-item questionnaire was reduced using item response theory, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability analysis. Selected items and demographic variables were further refined using LASSO regression and Bayesian Information Criterion based logistic modeling. Model performance was assessed through area under the curve (AUC) and calibration in temporal testing.
resultsFifteen items met all psychometric criteria (Cronbach’s α = 0.840). LASSO retained 19 variables; final modeling yielded 17 variables. The nomogram-based model showed excellent discrimination (AUC = 0.952 training; 0.949 testing). Sensitivity and specificity exceeded 86%, with negative predictive value over 93%. Calibration remained strong with minimal performance degradation.
conclusionsThe evaluated 15-item model offers a brief, reliable alternative to the national questionnaire. Its high classification performance and reduced burden support integration into health surveillance systems and electronic health records.
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.