ArticleScientific reports2026
Disability and health literacy in Korea: evidence from a national survey.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health literacy is important for effective disease prevention and health promotion. People with disabilities may require especially strong health literacy because they have higher unmet healthcare needs and more chronic disease. Although some studies suggest lower health literacy among people with disabilities, evidence from nationally representative data is limited. Using the 2021 Korea Health Panel Survey, we assessed health literacy among adults aged 19+ (N = 11,057) and compared those with and without disabilities defined by the National Disability Registration System. Sensitivity analyses used an alternative definition of disability derived from self-reported difficulties in daily activities. Linear regressions adjusted for gender, age, education, income, and chronic conditions. Adults with disabilities scored 0.94 points lower on the 16-point European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire scale than those without (p < 0.001). Under the alternative definition, the gap was larger at 1.49 points (p < 0.001). Differences varied by disability type: cognitive limitations were associated with the largest deficit (- 3.93, p < 0.001), followed by hearing limitations (- 2.01, p < 0.001); physical disabilities did not differ significantly. These findings indicate clear disparities in health literacy by disability status and heterogeneity across disability types in Korea. Programs and policies to improve health literacy among people with disabilities should be tailored to disability type.
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.