Cargando…
The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is seen as an increasingly relevant issue for global public health and requires a reliable and comprehensive operationalization. By now, there is limited evidence on how the development of tools measuring HL proceeded in recent years and if scholars considered existi...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289240/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25418011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207 |
_version_ | 1782352073573007360 |
---|---|
author | Altin, Sibel Vildan Finke, Isabelle Kautz-Freimuth, Sibylle Stock, Stephanie |
author_facet | Altin, Sibel Vildan Finke, Isabelle Kautz-Freimuth, Sibylle Stock, Stephanie |
author_sort | Altin, Sibel Vildan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is seen as an increasingly relevant issue for global public health and requires a reliable and comprehensive operationalization. By now, there is limited evidence on how the development of tools measuring HL proceeded in recent years and if scholars considered existing methodological guidance when developing an instrument. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of generic measurement tools developed to assess HL by searching PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Knowledge (2009 forward). Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/ full text articles for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Additionally we conducted a reporting quality appraisal according to the survey reporting guideline SURGE. RESULTS: We identified 17 articles reporting on the development and validation of 17 instruments measuring health literacy. More than two thirds of all instruments are based on a multidimensional construct of health literacy. Moreover, there is a trend towards a mixed measurement (self-report and direct test) of health literacy with 41% of instruments applying it, though results strongly indicate a weakness of coherence between the underlying constructs measured. Overall, almost every third instrument is based on assessment formats modeled on already existing functional literacy screeners such as the REALM or the TOFHLA and 30% of the included articles do not report on significant reporting features specified in the SURGE guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Scholars recently developing instruments that measure health literacy mainly comply with recommendations of the academic circle by applying multidimensional constructs and mixing up measurement approaches to capture health literacy comprehensively. Nonetheless, there is still a dependence on assessment formats, rooted in functional literacy measurement contradicting the widespread call for new instruments. All things considered, there is no clear “consensus” on HL measurement but a convergence to more comprehensive tools. Giving attention to this finding can help to offer direction towards the development of comparable and reliable health literacy assessment tools that effectively respond to the informational needs of populations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4289240 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42892402015-01-11 The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review Altin, Sibel Vildan Finke, Isabelle Kautz-Freimuth, Sibylle Stock, Stephanie BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is seen as an increasingly relevant issue for global public health and requires a reliable and comprehensive operationalization. By now, there is limited evidence on how the development of tools measuring HL proceeded in recent years and if scholars considered existing methodological guidance when developing an instrument. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of generic measurement tools developed to assess HL by searching PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Knowledge (2009 forward). Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/ full text articles for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Additionally we conducted a reporting quality appraisal according to the survey reporting guideline SURGE. RESULTS: We identified 17 articles reporting on the development and validation of 17 instruments measuring health literacy. More than two thirds of all instruments are based on a multidimensional construct of health literacy. Moreover, there is a trend towards a mixed measurement (self-report and direct test) of health literacy with 41% of instruments applying it, though results strongly indicate a weakness of coherence between the underlying constructs measured. Overall, almost every third instrument is based on assessment formats modeled on already existing functional literacy screeners such as the REALM or the TOFHLA and 30% of the included articles do not report on significant reporting features specified in the SURGE guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Scholars recently developing instruments that measure health literacy mainly comply with recommendations of the academic circle by applying multidimensional constructs and mixing up measurement approaches to capture health literacy comprehensively. Nonetheless, there is still a dependence on assessment formats, rooted in functional literacy measurement contradicting the widespread call for new instruments. All things considered, there is no clear “consensus” on HL measurement but a convergence to more comprehensive tools. Giving attention to this finding can help to offer direction towards the development of comparable and reliable health literacy assessment tools that effectively respond to the informational needs of populations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4289240/ /pubmed/25418011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207 Text en © Altin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Altin, Sibel Vildan Finke, Isabelle Kautz-Freimuth, Sibylle Stock, Stephanie The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
title | The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
title_full | The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
title_short | The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
title_sort | evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289240/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25418011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT altinsibelvildan theevolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT finkeisabelle theevolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT kautzfreimuthsibylle theevolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT stockstephanie theevolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT altinsibelvildan evolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT finkeisabelle evolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT kautzfreimuthsibylle evolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview AT stockstephanie evolutionofhealthliteracyassessmenttoolsasystematicreview |