Dataset Information

What is the Prevalence of Low Health Literacy in European Union Member States? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many studies have shown that low health literacy (HL) is associated with several adverse outcomes. In this study, we systematically reviewed the prevalence of low HL in Europe.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Cross-sectional studies conducted in the European Union (EU), published from 2000, investigating the prevalence of low HL in adults using a reliable tool, were included. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance random effects methods were used to produce pooled prevalence estimates. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between low HL and the characteristics of the studies.

Results

The pooled prevalence of low HL ranged from of 27% (95% CI: 18-38%) to 48% (95% CI: 41-55%), depending on the literacy assessment method applied. Southern, Western, and Eastern EU countries had lower HL compared to northern Europe (β: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.40-1.35; β: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.25-0.93; and β: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.06-1.37, respectively). The assessment method significantly influenced the pooled estimate: compared to word recognition items, using self-reported comprehensions items (β: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15-1.08), reading or numeracy comprehensions items (β: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.24-1.31), or a mixed method (β: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.01-1.33) found higher rates of low HL. Refugees had the lowest HL (β: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.26-2.92). Finally, lower quality studies reported higher rates of low HL (β: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.06-1.07).

Discussion

We found that low HL is a public health challenge throughout Europe, where one in every three to almost one in every two Europeans may not be able to understand essential health-related material. Additional research is needed to investigate the underlying causes and to develop remedies.

Prospero registration

CRD42019133377.

SUBMITTER: Baccolini V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947142 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSedentary behaviour is increasingly recognized as an important health risk, but comparable data across Europe are scarce. The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence and correlates of self-reported sitting time in adults across and within the 28 European Union Member States.MethodsThis study reports data from the Special Eurobarometer 412. In 2013, 27,919 randomly selected Europeans (approximately 1000 per Member State) were interviewed face-to-face. Sitting time on a usual day was self-reported and dichotomised into sitting less- and more than 7.5 hours per day. Uni- and multivariate odds ratios of sitting more than 7.5 hours per day were assessed by country and socio-demographic variables using binary logistic regression analyses. The analyses were stratified by country to study the socio-demographic correlates of sitting time within the different countries.ResultsA total of 26,617 respondents were included in the analyses. Median sitting time was five hours per day. Across Europe, 18.5 percent of the respondents reported to sit more than 7.5 hours per day, with substantial variation between countries (ranging from 8.9 to 32.1 percent). In general, northern European countries reported more sitting than countries in the south of Europe. 'Current occupation' and 'age when stopped education' were found to be the strongest correlates of sitting time, both across Europe and within most Member States. Compared to manual workers, the odds ratio of sitting more than 7.5 hours per day was 5.00 for people with white collar occupations, 3.84 for students, and 3.65 for managers.ConclusionsThere is substantial variation in self-reported sitting time among European adults across countries as well as socio-demographic groups. While regular surveillance of (objectively measured) sedentary behaviour is needed, the results of this study provide entry points for developing targeted interventions aimed at highly sedentary populations, such as people with sedentary occupations.

Project description:Smoking prevention should be a primary public health priority for all governments, and effective preventive policies have been identified for decades. The heterogeneity of smoking prevalence between European Union (EU) Member States therefore reflects, at least in part, a failure by governments to prioritise public health over tobacco industry or possibly other financial interests, and hence potentially government corruption. The aims of this study were to test the hypothesis that smoking prevalence is higher in countries with high levels of public sector corruption, and explore the ecological association between smoking prevalence and a range of other national characteristics in current EU Member States.Ecological data from 27 EU Member States were used to estimate univariate and multivariate correlations between smoking prevalence and the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, and a range of other national characteristics including economic development, social inclusion, quality of life and importance of religion. We also explored the association between the Corruption Perceptions Index and measures of the extent to which smoke-free policies have been enacted and are enforced.In univariate analysis, smoking prevalence was significantly higher in countries with higher scores for corruption, material deprivation, and gender inequality; and lower in countries with higher per capita Gross Domestic Product, social spending, life satisfaction and human development scores. In multivariate analysis, only the corruption perception index was independently related to smoking prevalence. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace was also correlated with corruption, independently from smoking prevalence, but not with the measures of national smoke-free policy implementation.Corruption appears to be an important risk factor for failure of national tobacco control activity in EU countries, and the extent to which key tobacco control policies have been implemented. Further research is needed to assess the causal relationships involved.

Project description:In 2020, Council Directive 2005/94/EC required EU Member States (MSs) to carry out surveillance for avian influenza (AI) in poultry and wild birds and notify the results to the responsible authority. Based on this, MSs, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom implemented ongoing surveillance programmes to monitor incursions of AI viruses in poultry and wild birds. EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to collate, validate, analyse and summarise the data resulting from the avian influenza surveillance programmes in an annual report. This is the second such report produced using data directly submitted to EFSA by MSs. This report summarises the results of the surveillance activities carried out in poultry and wild birds in 2020. Overall, 24,768 poultry establishments (PEs) were sampled, of which 46 were seropositive for H5 virus strains and seven for H7 strains. Seropositive PEs were found in nine MSs (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden) and the United Kingdom. As per previous years, the highest percentages of seropositive PEs were found in establishments raising waterfowl game birds and breeding geese. Out of the 53 PEs with positive serological tests for H5/H7, seven tested positive in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or virology for H5/H7 virus strains: six for Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) and one for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). In addition, 13 countries also reported PCR results from 748 PEs which did not correspond to the follow-up testing of a positive serology event (e.g. in some PEs, PCR tests were used for screening). Twenty-five of these PEs were found positive for AI viral RNA. These positive PEs were located in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Romania and Slovakia. A total of 18,968 wild birds were sampled, with 878 birds testing positive to HPAI virus. Fourteen countries reported HPAI-positive wild birds, with all HPAI strains identified as H5. Most positive birds were infected with H5N8, with a smaller number of N1, N3, N5 and unidentified NA subtypes. In addition, there were 317 birds testing positive for LPAI H5 or H7 virus and 429 birds testing positive for non-H5/H7 AI virus, reported by 31 countries. The surveillance findings for poultry and wild birds for 2020 are discussed in relation to the current knowledge of the epidemiology of AI in Europe, in particular the H5N8 epidemic which has been identified late 2020.