ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2026
A Scoping Review of Health Literacy Measurement in U.S. Interventions: Trends, Tools, and Gaps.
Article in Health literacy research 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy is a critical determinant of health outcomes, yet considerable variability exists in how it is measured across intervention studies. This scoping review article systematically mapped health literacy measurement tools and implementation reporting practices in United States-based interventions published between 2014 and 2024, with particular attention to validated and nonvalidated instruments and their application across diverse populations and settings.
methodsFollowing Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we searched Ovid MEDLINE in January 2025 for studies describing health literacy interventions focusing on health care providers, patients, educators, or community organizations in the U.S. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data using the Population-Concept-Context framework. Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate reporting of Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance dimensions. KEY
resultsOf 117 included studies, most targeted health care patients, with strong representation of racial and ethnic groups but limited inclusion of non-English speakers. Health literacy measurement was reported in 71 studies, with only 49 employing validated instruments. The Newest Vital Sign, eHealth Literacy Scale, and RE-AIM were most frequently used. Nearly all studies reported effectiveness with statistically significant results, predominantly measuring behavioral rather than clinical outcomes. RE-AIM analysis revealed substantial reporting gaps, particularly in demographic details, implementation fidelity, cost documentation, and maintenance planning. Only 18% of studies reported fidelity and fewer than 10% described sustainability strategies. DISCUSSION: While health literacy intervention research has grown substantially, significant inconsistencies in measurement practices and implementation reporting limit comparability and translation into practice. The field requires greater standardization in measurement approaches, more comprehensive demographic reporting to assess equity impacts, and systematic application of implementation science frameworks from intervention inception. Improved reporting standards are essential to accelerate translation of health literacy research into sustainable, equitable practice.
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.