SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Quality of measurement instruments assessing Planetary and One Health Literacy related constructs: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmid accelerating anthropogenic climate and ecological crises, the expansion of health literacy as a comprehensive and multidimensional concept addressing upstream determinants of health has become relevant. A critical gap persists in measurement research to identify validated instruments for health literacy within the environment-health nexus.
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the quality of existing instruments that measure Planetary and One Health Literacy or related constructs according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsychInfo, APA PsycArticles, PSYNDEX, and Greenline to identify development and/or validation studies of suitable instruments. We assessed the risk of bias of each study, systematically evaluated the psychometric properties of instruments, and graded the certainty of evidence to inform recommendations for instrument use and further development.
resultsOut of 192 screened records, we identified four studies employing three instruments: Climate Change Health Literacy Scale (CCHLS), Climate Change and Infectious Disease Literacy Scale, and Sustainable Food Literacy Scale (SFLS). The quality of evidence for the development and content validity in all instruments was rated low or very low. Of all scales the SFLS demonstrated the best results in the assessed measurement properties supported by very good quality of evidence in its original, while its Turkish adaptation had low methodological quality in its assessed measurement properties and insufficient reliability.
conclusionThe included studies emphasised quantitative validation over robust instrument development and transparency in their reporting, highlighting the need for clearly defining constructs and involving target populations in the design processes. While existing measurement instruments primarily assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour, the lack of attention to the health literacy's construct calls for stronger integration between health literacy, Planetary Health, and One Health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888415What 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.