ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026
The association between health literacy and out-of-pocket health expenditure: exploring heterogeneity by chronic disease in Zhejiang, China.
Article in International journal for equity in 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy has been increasingly emphasized as a critical factor shaping healthcare behaviors and costs. However, empirical evidence on its association with out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure remains complex, and little is known about how this relationship varies by chronic disease status. This study aimed to identify distinct health literacy profiles within a large Chinese population, examine their associations with OOP expenditure, and explore how these associations vary by chronic disease status.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using data from a large-scale health literacy survey of 56,863 residents aged 15-69 in Zhejiang, China. Latent profile analysis (LPA) identified health literacy subgroups using the validated Chinese Health Literacy Scale. A Two-Part Model was employed to decompose expenditure into the probability of incurring costs and expenditure intensity. Stratified analyses were conducted to examine variation across chronic disease status.
resultsLPA identified three health literacy profiles with weighted proportions of: Relatively High (61.45%), Moderate (26.54%), and Low (12.01%). The analysis revealed an inverted U-shaped trajectory. The Moderate group exhibited significantly higher total OOP expenditure than the Low group (AME = 554.71 CNY, P < 0.05), driven primarily by elevated expenditure intensity. Conversely, the Relatively High group showed no significant difference (P > 0.05), indicating expenditure levels comparable to the baseline. Interaction analysis suggested potential heterogeneity by chronic disease status (P for interaction = 0.053, in Part 2), which prompted exploratory stratified analyses. Among those with one chronic disease, the Relatively High group showed higher probability of incurring expenditure (Part 1, P < 0.01) but significantly lower expenditure intensity (Part 2, P < 0.05). However, this association was not statistically significant among those with multimorbidity.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that health literacy is associated with expenditure in a non-linear pattern. While higher literacy maintains expenditure at baseline levels, exploratory analyses suggest this protective effect may be attenuated under high disease burden. To enhance both equity and efficiency, policy strategies should focus on cultivating decision-making capabilities for appropriate healthcare utilization among general populations and strengthening financial protection for those with complex needs.
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.