Distribution of health literacy strengths and weaknesses across socio-demographic groups: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)
Distribution of health literacy strengths and weaknesses across socio-demographic groups: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12889-015-2056-z
复制
发表时间：
2015-07-21
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Osborne, Richard H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beauchamp, Alison;Buchbinder, Rachelle;Osborne, Richard H.
背景：最近在健康素养测量方面取得的进展使人们能够描述这一概念的广泛的个人和社会层面。确定不同人口分组之间卫生知识普及模式的差异，将增进对卫生知识普及如何助长卫生不公平现象的理解，并为干预措施的制定提供信息。本研究的目的是使用多维测量工具来描述澳大利亚维多利亚州城市和农村成年人的健康素养。方法：采用健康素养问卷（HLQ）对8家卫生和社区保健机构的客户（n = 813）进行数据收集。还收集了人口和保健服务数据。数据分析采用描述性统计。使用标准化均值差异的效应量（ES）来描述人口统计亚组之间差异的大小。结果：受访者平均年龄为72.1岁（范围19-99岁）。女性占样本的63%，48%未完成中等教育，96%报告至少有一种现有健康状况。大多数人口统计组之间的HLQ量表的平均差异由小到大的ES。与在家说英语的参与者相比，在家不说英语的参与者在大多数HLQ量表上的得分要低得多，包括量表“对健康信息的理解足够好，知道该做什么”（ES -1.09[95%置信区间(CI) -1.33至-0.84]），“积极参与医疗保健提供者的能力”（ES -1.00 [95% CI -1.24, -0.75]）和“导航医疗保健系统”（ES -0.72 [95% CI -0.97, -0.48]）。与出生在澳大利亚的人相比，出生在海外的人也有类似的模式和ES。较小的ES在性别、年龄组、私人健康保险状况、慢性疾病数量和独居方面被观察到。结论：本研究揭示了维多利亚州使用卫生服务的成年人在健康素养的九个领域之间存在一些巨大的健康素养差异。这些发现为了解弱势群体的卫生知识普及与社会经济地位之间的关系提供了见解，并且鉴于高水平问题的重点，为制定公平的干预措施提供了指导。
Background: Recent advances in the measurement of health literacy allow description of a broad range of personal and social dimensions of the concept. Identifying differences in patterns of health literacy between population sub-groups will increase understanding of how health literacy contributes to health inequities and inform intervention development. The aim of this study was to use a multi-dimensional measurement tool to describe the health literacy of adults in urban and rural Victoria, Australia.Methods: Data were collected from clients (n = 813) of 8 health and community care organisations, using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Demographic and health service data were also collected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Effect sizes (ES) for standardised differences in means were used to describe the magnitude of difference between demographic sub-groups.Results: Mean age of respondents was 72.1 (range 19-99) years. Females comprised 63 % of the sample, 48 % had not completed secondary education, and 96 % reported at least one existing health condition. Small to large ES were seen for mean differences in HLQ scales between most demographic groups. Compared with participants who spoke English at home, those not speaking English at home had much lower scores for most HLQ scales including the scales 'Understanding health information well enough to know what to do' (ES -1.09 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -1.33 to -0.84]), 'Ability to actively engage with healthcare providers' (ES -1.00 [95 % CI -1.24, -0.75]), and 'Navigating the healthcare system' (ES -0.72 [95 % CI -0.97, -0.48]). Similar patterns and ES were seen for participants born overseas compared with those born in Australia. Smaller ES were seen for sex, age group, private health insurance status, number of chronic conditions, and living alone.Conclusions: This study has revealed some large health literacy differences across nine domains of health literacy in adults using health services in Victoria. These findings provide insights into the relationship between health literacy and socioeconomic position in vulnerable groups and, given the focus of the HLQ, provide guidance for the development of equitable interventions.