122
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Distribution of health literacy strengths and weaknesses across socio-demographic groups: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory.

          This article proposes a new approach to factor analysis and structural equation modeling using Bayesian analysis. The new approach replaces parameter specifications of exact zeros with approximate zeros based on informative, small-variance priors. It is argued that this produces an analysis that better reflects substantive theories. The proposed Bayesian approach is particularly beneficial in applications where parameters are added to a conventional model such that a nonidentified model is obtained if maximum-likelihood estimation is applied. This approach is useful for measurement aspects of latent variable modeling, such as with confirmatory factor analysis, and the measurement part of structural equation modeling. Two application areas are studied, cross-loadings and residual correlations in confirmatory factor analysis. An example using a full structural equation model is also presented, showing an efficient way to find model misspecification. The approach encompasses 3 elements: model testing using posterior predictive checking, model estimation, and model modification. Monte Carlo simulations and real data are analyzed using Mplus. The real-data analyses use data from Holzinger and Swineford's (1939) classic mental abilities study, Big Five personality factor data from a British survey, and science achievement data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

            Background Health literacy has become an increasingly important concept in public health. We sought to develop a comprehensive measure of health literacy capable of diagnosing health literacy needs across individuals and organisations by utilizing perspectives from the general population, patients, practitioners and policymakers. Methods Using a validity-driven approach we undertook grounded consultations (workshops and interviews) to identify broad conceptually distinct domains. Questionnaire items were developed directly from the consultation data following a strict process aiming to capture the full range of experiences of people currently engaged in healthcare through to people in the general population. Psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory. Cognitive interviews were used to ensure questions were understood as intended. Items were initially tested in a calibration sample from community health, home care and hospital settings (N=634) and then in a replication sample (N=405) comprising recent emergency department attendees. Results Initially 91 items were generated across 6 scales with agree/disagree response options and 5 scales with difficulty in undertaking tasks response options. Cognitive testing revealed that most items were well understood and only some minor re-wording was required. Psychometric testing of the calibration sample identified 34 poorly performing or conceptually redundant items and they were removed resulting in 10 scales. These were then tested in a replication sample and refined to yield 9 final scales comprising 44 items. A 9-factor CFA model was fitted to these items with no cross-loadings or correlated residuals allowed. Given the very restricted nature of the model, the fit was quite satisfactory: χ 2 WLSMV(866 d.f.) = 2927, p<0.000, CFI = 0.936, TLI = 0.930, RMSEA = 0.076, and WRMR = 1.698. Final scales included: Feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers; Having sufficient information to manage my health; Actively managing my health; Social support for health; Appraisal of health information; Ability to actively engage with healthcare providers; Navigating the healthcare system; Ability to find good health information; and Understand health information well enough to know what to do. Conclusions The HLQ covers 9 conceptually distinct areas of health literacy to assess the needs and challenges of a wide range of people and organisations. Given the validity-driven approach, the HLQ is likely to be useful in surveys, intervention evaluation, and studies of the needs and capabilities of individuals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.

              To review the relationship between literacy and health outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILLR), PsychInfo, and Ageline from 1980 to 2003. We included observational studies that reported original data, measured literacy with any valid instrument, and measured one or more health outcomes. Two abstractors reviewed each study for inclusion and resolved disagreements by discussion. One reviewer abstracted data from each article into an evidence table; the second reviewer checked each entry. The whole study team reconciled disagreements about information in evidence tables. Both data extractors independently completed an 11-item quality scale for each article; scores were averaged to give a final measure of article quality. We reviewed 3,015 titles and abstracts and pulled 684 articles for full review; 73 articles met inclusion criteria and, of those, 44 addressed the questions of this report. Patients with low literacy had poorer health outcomes, including knowledge, intermediate disease markers, measures of morbidity, general health status, and use of health resources. Patients with low literacy were generally 1.5 to 3 times more likely to experience a given poor outcome. The average quality of the articles was fair to good. Most studies were cross-sectional in design; many failed to address adequately confounding and the use of multiple comparisons. Low literacy is associated with several adverse health outcomes. Future research, using more rigorous methods, will better define these relationships and guide developers of new interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alison.beauchamp@deakin.edu.au
                rachelle.buchbinder@monash.edu
                sarity.dodson@deakin.edu.au
                roy.batterham@deakin.edu.au
                gerald.elsworth@deakin.edu.au
                crystal.mcphee@deakin.edu.au
                louise.sparkes@deakin.edu.au
                melanie.hawkins@deakin.edu.au
                richard.osborne@deakin.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                21 July 2015
                21 July 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 678
                Affiliations
                [ ]Public Health Innovation, Population Health Strategic Research Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Melbourne, VIC 3125 Australia
                [ ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Malvern, VIC Australia
                [ ]School of Nursing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                2056
                10.1186/s12889-015-2056-z
                4508810
                26194350
                6305364a-4733-4970-b129-fb12a041acf8
                © Beauchamp et al. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 December 2014
                : 14 July 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Public health
                health literacy,health inequities,chronic disease,culturally and linguistically diverse,health literacy questionnaire,hlq

                Comments

                Comment on this article