The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review.
The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-24
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Stock S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Altin SV;Finke I;Kautz-Freimuth S;Stock S
健康素养（HL）被视为全球公共卫生日益相关的问题，需要一个可靠和全面的操作。到目前为止，有有限的证据如何测量HL的工具的发展进行了在最近几年，如果学者考虑现有的方法指导时，开发一个工具。我们通过检索PubMed、ERIC、CINAHL和Web of Knowledge（2009年以后），对开发用于评估HL的通用测量工具进行了系统性综述。两名评审员根据预定义的标准独立评审了摘要/全文文章。此外，我们根据调查报告指南SURGE进行了报告质量评估。我们确定了17篇文章，报告了17种测量健康素养的工具的开发和验证。所有文书中有三分之二以上是基于卫生知识普及的多层面构想。此外，有一种趋势是对健康素养的混合测量（自我报告和直接测试），41%的工具应用它，但结果强烈表明，所测量的基本结构之间的一致性薄弱。总体而言，几乎三分之一的工具是基于现有功能性识字筛查工具（如REALM或TOFHLA）的评估格式，30%的纳入文献未报告SURGE指南中规定的重要报告特征。近年来学者们开发的测量健康素养的工具主要是遵循学术界的建议，采用多维结构和混合测量方法来全面测量健康素养。尽管如此，仍然存在着对评估格式的依赖，这种评估格式植根于实用识字计量，这与对新工具的广泛呼吁相矛盾。从各方面考虑，在HL测量方面没有明确的“共识”，但正在趋同于更全面的工具。关注这一发现有助于为开发可有效应对人口信息需求的可比和可靠的健康素养评估工具提供方向。本文的在线版本（doi：10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
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. 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. 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. 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. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1590/s0034-89102012005000047
发表时间：
2012-08-01
期刊：
Revista de Saúde Pública
影响因子：
--
作者：
Apolinario, Daniel;Braga, Rafaela de Castro Oliveira Pereira;Lee, Shoou-Yih Daniel
通讯作者：
Lee, Shoou-Yih Daniel
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Begoray, Deborah Leslie;Kwan, Brenda
通讯作者：
Kwan, Brenda
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
James BD;Boyle PA;Bennett JS;Bennett DA
通讯作者：
Bennett DA
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Chang, Li-Chun;Hsieh, Pei-Lin;Liu, Chieh-Hsing
通讯作者：
Liu, Chieh-Hsing
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Chew, Lisa D.;Griffin, Joan M.;VanRyn, Michelle
通讯作者：
VanRyn, Michelle