Up to a quarter of the Australian population may have suboptimal health literacy depending upon the measurement tool: results from a population-based survey
Up to a quarter of the Australian population may have suboptimal health literacy depending upon the measurement tool: results from a population-based survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/heapro/dap022
复制
发表时间：
2009-09-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Buchbinder, Rachelle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barber, Melissa N.;Staples, Margaret;Buchbinder, Rachelle
本文的目的是衡量健康素养在澳大利亚一般人群的代表性样本使用三种健康素养工具，考虑结果的一致性，并确定这些评估是否与社会人口特征。面对面的访谈进行了分层随机抽样的成年维多利亚州人口确定从2004年澳大利亚政府选民名册。通过邮件和后续电话邀请与会者参加。健康素养的测量使用成人医学素养快速评估（REALM），成人功能性健康素养测试（TOFHLA）和最新生命体征（NVS）。在1680名被邀请参加的人中，89人（5.3%）不合格，750人（44.6%）无法通过电话联系，531人（32%）拒绝，310人（回复率310/1591，19.5%）同意参加。与一般人口相比，参与者年龄稍大，受教育程度较高，年收入较高。健康知识水平不足的参与者比例各不相同：NVS为26.0%（80/308），REALM为10.6%（51/310），TOFHLA为6.8%（21/309）。人们发现，在一般人口中，有一个比例不等但很大的群体的卫生知识普及程度有限。我们使用的健康素养措施，虽然适度相关，似乎测量不同的，但相关的结构，并使用不同的截止值，以表明穷人的健康素养。
The objective of this paper is to measure health literacy in a representative sample of the Australian general population using three health literacy tools; to consider the congruency of results; and to determine whether these assessments were associated with socio-demographic characteristics. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in a stratified random sample of the adult Victorian population identified from the 2004 Australian Government Electoral Roll. Participants were invited to participate by mail and follow-up telephone call. Health literacy was measured using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) and Newest Vital Sign (NVS). Of 1680 people invited to participate, 89 (5.3%) were ineligible, 750 (44.6%) were not contactable by phone, 531 (32%) refused and 310 (response rate 310/1591, 19.5%) agreed to participate. Compared with the general population, participants were slightly older, better educated and had a higher annual income. The proportion of participants with less than adequate health literacy levels varied: 26.0% (80/308) for the NVS, 10.6% (51 33/310) for the REALM and 6.8% (21/309) for the TOFHLA. A varying but significant proportion of the general population was found to have limited health literacy. The health literacy measures we used, while moderately correlated, appear to measure different but related constructs and use different cut offs to indicate poor health literacy.