ArticleScientific reports2026
Translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Slovene version of the Heart Failure-Specific Health Literacy Scale in patients with heart failure.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- General and disease-specific health literacy in patients with heart failure: an outcome analysis.ESC heart failure · 2026Observational
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
In this study, we translated and culturally adapted the Heart Failure-Specific HealthLliteracy Scale (HFsHLS) and psychometrically evaluated it among Slovenian patients with heart failure (HF). A cross-sectional study was conducted among 126 outpatients with chronic HF (mean age 69 ± 11 years; 71% male; 63% had LVEF ≤ 40%). Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using the HFsHLS, the Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS), the Dutch Heart Failure Knowledge Scale, and the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behavior Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original three-factor structure (Functional, Communicative, and Critical HL subscales) with acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07). The HFsHLS total scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.71) and a moderate correlation with the BHLS (ρ = 0.49, p < 0.001), while correlations with HF knowledge and self-care were weak and non-significant (ρ = 0.12, p = 0.184; ρ = 0.16, p = 0.182). The Functional HL subscale performed best. Overall, the Slovenian version of the HFsHLS is a valid tool for assessing disease-specific HL in patients with HF.
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.