Coordination Funds

加强卫生素养已成为德国公共卫生行动的一个优先领域。有证据表明，高水平的HL与更好的健康结果有关，研究表明，超过一半的德国人口在处理健康信息和使用医疗保健系统方面存在困难，这一政治主张得到了支持。在当代公共卫生研究中，HL主要被操作化为个人获取、理解、评估和应用健康信息以做出良好健康相关决策的知识、能力和动机。这种构建HL的方式带来了一些挑战。有必要(1)不仅认识到一般人群的个人需求和局限性，而且认识到高危人群等特定目标群体的个人需求和局限性，(2)考虑影响卫生决策的复杂的社会、伦理、生态和系统力量，(3)进一步阐明新出现的科学证据和专业知识在公共卫生工作中的作用，(4)推进HL的测量，(5)解决不确定的证据和建议。DFG研究小组HELICAP使用儿童早期过敏预防（ECAP）和过敏儿童的COVID-19 （COVICAL）来调查命名的挑战。ECAP和COVICAL都具有很大的不确定性。基于一个改进的HL概念模型，其中强调社会、环境、情境和个人决定因素，HELICAP在科学协调中心（SCC）的协调下，通过七个不同的工作包调查HL。SCC根据三项主要任务执行HELICAP小组的联合工作计划：(1)在公共卫生参与和参与委员会（PHEIB）、科学公共卫生咨询委员会（SPHAB）的协助下，促进利益攸关方的参与，并继续开展已成立的“参与性研究”工作队（TFPR）。(2)在董事会会议和评估HELICAP研讨会期间，通过对话分析和跨学科话语的参与者观察进行相关研究；(3)综合和整合研究结果，包括随着HELICAP在第二资助阶段变得更具干预性，对教育和系统层面的干预措施进行概述。此外，我们将尝试为我们的HL用例ECAP和COVICAL指定在第一个资助阶段已经修改的HL模型。HELICAP研讨会、董事会会议、早期职业研究人员研讨会和TFPR会议将确保不断为跨学科科学讨论提供空间。

Strengthening health literacy (HL) has become a priority public health action field in Germany. This political claim has gained momentum by evidence linking higher levels of HL to better health outcomes and research showing that more than half of the German population has difficulty dealing with health information and navigating the health care system. In contemporary public health research, HL is mostly operationalized as knowledge, competence, and motivation of an individual person to access, understand, appraise and apply health information to make good health-related decisions. Several challenges arise from this way of framing HL. There is a need (i)to recognize personal needs and limitations not only of the general population but also of specific target groups such as populations at risk, (ii)to consider the complex social, ethical, ecological, and systemic forces affecting health decisions, (iii) to further clarify the role of emerging scientific evidence and professional expertise within public health efforts, (iv) to advance the measurement of HL and (v) to address uncertain evidence and recommendations. The DFG research group HELICAP uses early childhood allergy prevention (ECAP) and COVID-19 in children with allergies (COVICAL) to investigate the named challenges. Both ECAP and COVICAL are characterized by substantial uncertainty. Based on a modified conceptual model of HL in which social, environmental, situational and personal determinants are emphasized HELICAP investigates HL in seven distinct work packages, coordinated by the Scientific Coordination Center (SCC). The SCC implements the joint work programme of the HELICAP group according to three main tasks: (1) Facilitating stakeholder participation, aided by a Public Health Engagement and Involvement Board (PHEIB), a Scientific Public Health Advisory Board (SPHAB) and the continuation of the already established task force “Participatory Research” (TFPR). (2) Conducting accompanying research through conversation analysis as well as participant observation of the interdisciplinary discourse during board meetings and evaluation of HELICAP workshops and (3) Synthesis and integration of findings including a synopsis of educational and system-level interventions as HELICAP becomes more interventional in the second funding phase. Further, we will attempt to specify the HL model already modified in the first funding phase for our HL-use cases ECAP and COVICAL. HELICAP workshops, boardmeetings, early career researcher workshops and the TFPR meetings will ensure that space is continuously provided for interdisciplinary scientific discourse.