Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25478813›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

An overview of self-administered health literacy instruments.

Braden O Neill, Daniela Gonçalves, Ignacio Ricci-Cabello, Sue Ziebland, Jose Valderas

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Systematic Review of the Prevalence and Associations of Limited Health Literacy in CKD.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. [Measuring health literacy: methods and tools for assessing general health literacy in adults].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Exploring pandemic-related health literacy among adolescents in Germany: a focus group study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Identification of low health and cancer literacy in oncology patients: a cross-sectional survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Braden O NeillNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Daniela GonçalvesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ignacio Ricci-CabelloNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sue ZieblandNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jose ValderasMedical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR/CS/010/024Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increasing recognition of health literacy as a worldwide research priority, the development and refinement of indices to measure the construct is an important area of inquiry. Furthermore, the proliferation of online resources and research means that there is a growing need for self-administered instruments. We undertook a systematic overview to identify all published self-administered health literacy assessment indices to report their content and considerations associated with their administration. A primary aim of this study was to assist those seeking to employ a self-reported health literacy index to select one that has been developed and validated for an appropriate context, as well as with desired administration characteristics. Systematic searches were carried out in four electronic databases, and studies were included if they reported the development and/or validation of a novel health literacy assessment measure. Data were systematically extracted on key characteristics of the instruments: breadth of construct ("generic" vs. "content- or context- specific" health literacy), whether it was an original instrument or a derivative, country of origin, administration characteristics, age of target population (adult vs. pediatric), and evidence for validity. 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. There were 27 original instruments (27/35; 77.1%) and 8 derivative instruments (8/35; 22.9%). 22 indices measured "general" health literacy (22/35; 62.9%) while the remainder measured condition- or context- specific health literacy (13/35; 37.1%). Most health literacy measures were developed in the United States (22/35; 62.9%), and about half had adequate face, content, and construct validity (16/35; 45.7%). Given the number of measures available for many specific conditions and contexts, and that several have acceptable validity, our findings suggest that the research agenda should shift towards the investigation and elaboration of health literacy as a construct itself, in order for research in health literacy measurement to progress.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualHealth EducationHealth LiteracyHealth Services ResearchHumansSchoolsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID25478813
PMCPMC4257499

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.