Dataset Information

Definitions and measurement of health literacy in health and medicine research: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The way health literacy is understood (conceptualised) should be closely linked to how it is measured (operationalised). This study aimed to gain insights into how health literacy is defined and measured in current health literacy research and to examine the relationship between health literacy definitions and instruments.

Design

Systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

Data sources

The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published during two randomly selected months (March and October) in 2019.

Eligibility criteria

We included articles with a quantitative design that measured health literacy, were peer-reviewed and original, were published in the English language and included a study population older than 16 years.

Data extraction and synthesis

Six researchers screened the articles for eligibility and extracted the data independently. All health literacy definitions and instruments were considered in relation to category 1 (describing basic reading and writing skills, disease-specific knowledge and practical skills) and category 2 (social health literacy competence and the ability to interpret and critically assess health information). The categories were inspired by Nutbeam's descriptions of the different health literacy levels.

Results

120 articles were included in the review: 60 within public health and 60 within clinical health. The majority of the articles (n=77) used instruments from category 1. In total, 79 of the studies provided a health literacy definition; of these, 71 were in category 2 and 8 were in category 1. In almost half of the studies (n=38), health literacy was defined in a broad perspective (category 2) but measured with a more narrow focus (category 1).

Conclusion

Due to the high degree of inconsistency between health literacy definitions and instruments in current health literacy research, there is a risk of missing important information about health literacy considered be important to the initial understanding of the concept recognised in the studies.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020179699.

SUBMITTER: Urstad KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8845180 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Definitions and measurement of health literacy in health and medicine research: a systematic review.

Urstad Kristin Hjorthaug KH Andersen Marit Helen MH Larsen Marie Hamilton MH Borge Christine Råheim CR Helseth Sølvi S Wahl Astrid Klopstad AK

BMJ open 20220214 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The way health literacy is understood (conceptualised) should be closely linked to how it is measured (operationalised). This study aimed to gain insights into how health literacy is defined and measured in current health literacy research and to examine the relationship between health literacy definitions and instruments.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.<h4>Data sources</h4>The ...[more]

PMID: 35165112

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health literacy research seems to lack a consensus on what aspects to include into literacy in the context of health and on how to operationalize these concepts for measurement purposes. In addition to health literacy, several other concepts, such as electronic health (eHealth) literacy and mental health literacy, have been developed across disciplines. This study examines how these different concepts are used when studying health-related competencies in Web contexts. OBJECTIVE:This study systematically reviews health literacy concepts and definitions and their operationalization in studies focused on Web-based health information environments. METHODS:A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2016 in 6 electronic databases with a limitation to articles in English published between January 2011 and April 2016. Altogether, 1289 unique records were identified and screened according to the predefined inclusion criteria: (1) original, peer-reviewed research articles written in English; (2) the topic of the article concerned literacy in the context of health; (3) informants of the study were lay people, not health professionals or students of the field; and (4) the focus of the study was placed on an Web-based information environment. In total, 180 full texts were screened, of which 68 were included in the review. The studies were analyzed with an emphasis on the used health literacy concepts and measures. RESULTS:On the basis of the included studies, several concepts are in use when studying health-related literacy in Web environments, eHealth literacy and health literacy being the most common ones. The reviewed studies represent a variety of disciplines, but mostly medical sciences. Typically, quantitative research methods are used. On the basis of the definitions for health literacy, 3 thematic categories were identified: general and skill-based, multidimensional, and domain-specific health literacy. Most studies adopted a domain-specific concept, followed by the ones that used a general and skill-based concept. Multidimensional concepts occurred least frequently. The general health literacy concepts were usually operationalized with reading comprehension measures, the domain-specific concepts with self-efficacy measures, and multidimensional concepts with several types of measures. However, inconsistencies in operationalization were identified. CONCLUSIONS:The results show that in studies conducted in Web-based information environments, several different health literacy concepts are in use, and there is no clear consensus on the definitions for these concepts. Future studies should place emphasis on the conceptual development of health literacy in Web contexts to gain better results on operationalization for measurement. Researchers are encouraged to provide clear operational definitions for the concepts they use to ensure transparency in reporting.

Project description:BackgroundThe concept of physical literacy has stimulated increased research attention in recent years-being deployed in physical education, sport participation, and the promotion of physical activity. Independent research groups currently operationalize the construct differently.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a systematic review of the physical literacy construct, as reflected in contemporary research literature.MethodsFive databases were searched using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, peer reviewed, published by March 2016, and seeking to conceptualize physical literacy. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed in relation to three core areas: properties/attributes, philosophical foundations and theoretical associations with other constructs. A total of 50 published articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsThe thematic analysis addressed the three core areas. Under definitions, core attributes that define physical literacy were identified, as well as areas of conflict between different approaches currently being adopted. One relatively clear philosophical approach was prominent in approximately half of the papers, based on a monist/holistic ontology and phenomenological epistemology. Finally, the analysis identified a number of theoretical associations, including health, physical activity and academic performance.ConclusionsCurrent literature contains different representations of the physical literacy construct. The costs and benefits of adopting an exclusive approach versus pluralism are considered. Recommendations for both researchers and practitioners focus on identifying and clearly articulating the definitions, philosophical assumptions and expected outcomes prior to evaluating the effectiveness of this emerging concept.

Project description:BACKGROUND:With an increased political interest in school-based mental health education, the dominant understanding and measurement of mental health literacy (MHL) in adolescent research should be critically appraised. This systematic literature review aimed to investigate the conceptualisation and measurement of MHL in adolescent research and the extent of methodological homogeneity in the field for meta-analyses. METHODS:Databases (PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ASSIA and ERIC) and grey literature were searched (1997-2017). Included articles used the term 'mental health literacy' and presented self-report data for at least one MHL domain with an adolescent sample (10-19 years). Definitions, methodological and contextual data were extracted and synthesised. RESULTS:Ninety-one articles were identified. There was evidence of conceptual confusion, methodological inconsistency and a lack of measures developed and psychometrically tested with adolescents. The most commonly assessed domains were mental illness stigma and help-seeking beliefs; however, frequency of assessment varied by definition usage and study design. Recognition and knowledge of mental illnesses were assessed more frequently than help-seeking knowledge. A mental-ill health approach continues to dominate the field, with few articles assessing knowledge of mental health promotion. CONCLUSIONS:MHL research with adolescent samples is increasing. Results suggest that a better understanding of what MHL means for this population is needed in order to develop reliable, valid and feasible adolescent measures, and explore mechanisms for change in improving adolescent mental health. We recommend a move away from 'mental disorder literacy' and towards critical 'mental health literacy'. Future MHL research should apply integrated, culturally sensitive models of health literacy that account for life stage and acknowledge the interaction between individuals' ability and social and contextual demands.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous instruments are designed to measure digital literacy among the general population. However, few studies have assessed the use and appropriateness of these measurements for older populations.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify and critically appraise studies assessing digital literacy among older adults and to evaluate how digital literacy instruments used in existing studies address the elements of age-appropriate digital literacy using the European Commission's Digital Competence (DigComp) Framework.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for studies using validated instruments to assess digital literacy among older adults. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Instruments were assessed according to their ability to incorporate the competence areas of digital literacy as defined by the DigComp Framework: (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation, (4) safety, and (5) problem-solving ability, or attitudes toward information and communication technology use.ResultsSearches yielded 1561 studies, of which 27 studies (17 cross-sectional, 2 before and after, 2 randomized controlled trials, 1 longitudinal, and 1 mixed methods) were included in the final analysis. Studies were conducted in the United States (18/27), Germany (3/27), China (1/27), Italy (1/27), Sweden (1/27), Canada (1/27), Iran (1/27), and Bangladesh (1/27). Studies mostly defined older adults as aged ≥50 years (10/27) or ≥60 years (8/27). Overall, the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was the most frequently used instrument measuring digital literacy among older adults (16/27, 59%). Scores on the CCAT ranged from 34 (34/40, 85%) to 40 (40/40, 100%). Most instruments measured 1 or 2 of the DigComp Framework's elements, but the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ) measured all 5 elements, including "digital content creation" and "safety."ConclusionsThe current digital literacy assessment instruments targeting older adults have both strengths and weaknesses, relative to their study design, administration method, and ease of use. Certain instrument modalities like the MDPQ are more generalizable and inclusive and thus, favorable for measuring the digital literacy of older adults. More studies focusing on the suitability of such instruments for older populations are warranted, especially for areas like "digital content creation" and "safety" that currently lack assessment. Evidence-based discussions regarding the implications of digitalization for the treatment of older adults and how health care professionals may benefit from this phenomenon are encouraged.

Project description:BackgroundHealth literacy is an important health promotion concern and recently children and adolescents have been the focus of increased academic attention. To assess the health literacy of this population, researchers have been focussing on developing instruments to measure their health literacy. Compared to the wider availability of instruments for adults, only a few tools are known for younger age groups. The objective of this study is to systematically review the field of generic child and adolescent health literacy measurement instruments that are currently available.MethodA systematic literature search was undertaken in five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycNET, ERIC, and FIS) on articles published between January 1990 and July 2015, addressing children and adolescents ≤18 years old. Eligible articles were analysed, data was extracted, and synthesised according to review objectives.ResultsFifteen generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents were identified. All, except two, are self-administered instruments. Seven are objective measures (performance-based tests), seven are subjective measures (self-reporting), and one uses a mixed-method measurement. Most instruments applied a broad and multidimensional understanding of health literacy. The instruments were developed in eight different countries, with most tools originating in the United States (n = 6). Among the instruments, 31 different components related to health literacy were identified. Accordingly, the studies exhibit a variety of implicit or explicit conceptual and operational definitions, and most instruments have been used in schools and other educational contexts. While the youngest age group studied was 7-year-old children within a parent-child study, there is only one instrument specifically designed for primary school children and none for early years.ConclusionsDespite the reported paucity of health literacy research involving children and adolescents, an unexpected number of health literacy measurement studies in children's populations was found. Most instruments tend to measure their own specific understanding of health literacy and not all provide sufficient conceptual information. To advance health literacy instruments, a much more standardised approach is necessary including improved reporting on the development and validation processes. Further research is required to improve health literacy instruments for children and adolescents and to provide knowledge to inform effective interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite the common use of contagion to analogize the spread of suicide, there is a lack of rigorous assessment of the underlying concept or theory supporting the use of this term. The present study aims to examine the varied definitions and potential utility of the term contagion in suicide-related research.Methods100 initial records and 240 reference records in English were identified as relevant with our research objectives, through systematic literature screening. We then conducted narrative syntheses of various definitions and assessed their potential value for generating new research.Results20.3% of the 340 records used contagion as equivalent to clustering (contagion-as-cluster); 68.5% used it to refer to various, often related mechanisms underlying the clustering phenomenon (contagion-as-mechanism); and 11.2% without clear definition. Under the category of contagion-as-mechanism, four mechanisms have been proposed to explain how suicide clusters occurred: transmission (contagion-as-transmission), imitation (contagion-as-imitation), contextual influence (contagion-as-context), and affiliation (contagion-as-affiliation). Contagion-as-cluster both confounds and constrains inquiry into suicide clustering by blending proposed mechanism with the phenomenon to be studied. Contagion-as-transmission is, in essence, a double or internally redundant metaphor. Contagion-as-affiliation and contagion-as-context involve mechanisms that are common mechanisms that often occur independently of apparent contagion, or may serve as a facilitating background. When used indiscriminately, these terms may create research blind spots. Contagion-as-imitation combines perspectives from psychology, sociology, and public health research and provides the greatest heuristic utility for examining whether and how suicide and suicidal behaviors may spread among persons at both individual and population levels.ConclusionClarifying the concept of "suicide contagion" is an essential step for more thoroughly investigating its mechanisms. Developing a clearer understanding of the apparent spread of suicide-promoting influences can, in turn, offer insights necessary to build the scientific foundation for prevention and intervention strategies that can be applied at both individual and community levels.

Dataset Information

Definitions and measurement of health literacy in health and medicine research: a systematic review.

Objectives

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusion

Prospero registration number

Publications

Definitions and measurement of health literacy in health and medicine research: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets