ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Methodological quality of health literacy instruments used among school children in Asian countries: a systematic review.
Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to examine the methodological quality of measurement properties of health literacy instruments used in children, specifically in Asian countries, and to identify the most suitable instrument for field application. Methods: This systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Health literacy studies conducted between 2013 and 2023 and involving children aged 6-18 years old were identified through searches in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only studies that assessed methodological qualities were included. Quality appraisal was conducted using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Result: A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria from the screening process. The quality of measurement properties in these studies varied. With 9 items on the COSMIN checklist and 10 studies assessed, this resulted in a total of 90 checklist items evaluated. Based on this, 25 items were classified as very good (primarily for structural validity and general criteria), 7 as adequate (mainly for content validity), 14 as inadequate (mostly for internal consistency), 10 as doubtful (mostly for reliability) and 34 as unknown (primarily for measurement error, cross-cultural validity and responsiveness). Nearly 40% (37.7%) of measurement quality ratings were either unknown or not reported. Among the tools assessed, the 8-item Health Literacy Assessment Tool Chinese version (C-HLAT-8) demonstrated very good quality across most measurement properties compared to others. C-HLAT-8 includes functional, interactive and critical health literacy domains and has been assessed in children aged 11-17 in China. Conclusion: Despite the global interest in health literacy, studies focusing on methodological quality in the context of school children and Asian countries remain limited. The C-HLAT 8 emerges as a promising tool for field application due to its strong methodological quality and adaptability.
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.