ArticleBMJ open2025
Health literacy in relation to web-based measurement of cognitive function in the home: UK Women's Cohort Study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cognitive function in patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy - 1 year follow up.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOlder adults may require additional support to comprehend written information due to inadequate health literacy, which involves components of cognitive function including reaction time. This study tested the acceptability of web-based reaction time testing in the UK Women's Cohort Study and possible sources of bias. Additionally, it assessed the association between health literacy and reaction time.
designA cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the UK Women's Cohort Study, a prospective cohort study.
participantsThe study involved women aged 48-85 without cancer registration who participated in the 2010/2011 follow-up (n=768).
settingPostal questionnaires and web-based cognitive function tests were administered in participants' homes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Logistic regression identified predictors of volunteering for reaction time testing, used to calculate inverse probability weights for the primary analysis. Associations between health literacy and reaction time were estimated with linear regression models, adjusting for volunteer effects. Poisson regression models assessed associations between health literacy and choice reaction time errors. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was acceptability of web-based testing (response rate, task distress, task difficulty). Secondary outcomes were sources of volunteer bias and the association between health literacy and reaction time.
resultsWeb-based testing of cognitive function was attempted by 67% of women (maximum age 80), with little distress or difficulty reported. There was substantive volunteer bias. Women providing data on cognitive function were younger, had higher educational attainment and were higher in self-rated intelligence. Inadequate health literacy was associated with making fewer choice reaction time errors among those providing valid data but was also associated with not providing valid data. Health literacy was not associated with other aspects of reaction time (speed, variability). Additionally, selection bias may have restricted range on study variables, given that 2010/2011 volunteers were younger and more educated compared with those at recruitment in 1995/1998.
conclusionBrief web-based measures of cognitive function in the home are acceptable to women aged 48-80, but there are substantive selection effects and volunteer biases. Additionally, there are potentially vulnerable subgroups who provide poorer quality data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.