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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Altin, Sibel Vildan, Finke, Isabelle, Kautz-Freimuth, Sibylle, Stock, Stephanie
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