Revisiting the Newest Vital Sign Survey: Addressing Concerns About This Health Literacy Assessment Tool

Current health literacy screening instruments for health care settings are either too long for routine use or available only in English. Our objective was to develop a quick and accurate screening test for limited literacy available in English and Spanish. We administered candidate items for the new instrument and also the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) to English-speaking and Spanish-speaking primary care patients. We measured internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and assessed criterion validity by measuring correlations with TOFHLA scores. Using TOFLHA scores 0.76 in English and 0.69 in Spanish) and correlates with the TOFHLA. Area under the ROC curve is 0.88 for English and 0.72 for Spanish versions. Patients with more than 4 correct responses are unlikely to have low literacy, whereas fewer than 4 correct answers indicate the possibility of limited literacy. NVS is suitable for use as a quick screening test for limited literacy in primary health care settings.

Background With the digitization of health care and the wide availability of Web-based applications, a broad set of skills is essential to properly use such facilities; these skills are called digital health literacy or eHealth literacy. Current instruments to measure digital health literacy focus only on information gathering (Health 1.0 skills) and do not pay attention to interactivity on the Web (Health 2.0). To measure the complete spectrum of Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 skills, including actual competencies, we developed a new instrument. The Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI) measures operational skills, navigation skills, information searching, evaluating reliability, determining relevance, adding self-generated content, and protecting privacy. Objective Our objective was to study the distributional properties, reliability, content validity, and construct validity of the DHLI’s self-report scale (21 items) and to explore the feasibility of an additional set of performance-based items (7 items). Methods We used a paper-and-pencil survey among a sample of the general Dutch population, stratified by age, sex, and educational level (T1; N=200). The survey consisted of the DHLI, sociodemographics, Internet use, health status, health literacy and the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). After 2 weeks, we asked participants to complete the DHLI again (T2; n=67). Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation analysis between T1 and T2 were used to investigate reliability. Principal component analysis was performed to determine content validity. Correlation analyses were used to determine the construct validity. Results Respondents (107 female and 93 male) ranged in age from 18 to 84 years (mean 46.4, SD 19.0); 23.0% (46/200) had a lower educational level. Internal consistencies of the total scale (alpha=.87) and the subscales (alpha range .70-.89) were satisfactory, except for protecting privacy (alpha=.57). Distributional properties showed an approximately normal distribution. Test-retest analysis was satisfactory overall (total scale intraclass correlation coefficient=.77; subscale intraclass correlation coefficient range .49-.81). The performance-based items did not together form a single construct (alpha=.47) and should be interpreted individually. Results showed that more complex skills were reflected in a lower number of correct responses. Principal component analysis confirmed the theoretical structure of the self-report scale (76% explained variance). Correlations were as expected, showing significant relations with age (ρ=–.41, P<.001), education (ρ=.14, P=.047), Internet use (ρ=.39, P<.001), health-related Internet use (ρ=.27, P<.001), health status (ρ range .17-.27, P<.001), health literacy (ρ=.31, P<.001), and the eHEALS (ρ=.51, P<.001). Conclusions This instrument can be accepted as a new self-report measure to assess digital health literacy, using multiple subscales. Its performance-based items provide an indication of actual skills but should be studied and adapted further. Future research should examine the acceptability of this instrument in other languages and among different populations.

Education and health literacy potentially limit a person's ability to be involved in decisions about their health. Few studies, however, have explored understandings and experiences of involvement in decision making among patients varying in education and health literacy. This paper reports on a qualitative interview study of 73 men and women living in Sydney, Australia, with varying education and functional health literacy levels. Participants were recruited from a community sample with lower educational attainment, plus an educated sample of University of Sydney alumni. The transcripts were analysed using the 'Framework' approach, a matrix-based method of thematic analysis. We found that participants with different education conceptualised their involvement in decision making in diverse ways. Participants with higher education appeared to conceive their involvement as sharing the responsibility with the doctor throughout the decision-making process. This entailed verifying the credibility of the information and exploring options beyond those presented in the consultation. They also viewed themselves as helping others in their health decisions and acting as information resources. In contrast, participants with lower education appeared to conceive their involvement in terms of consenting to an option recommended by the doctor, and having responsibility for the ultimate decision, to agree or disagree with the recommendation. They also described how relatives and friends sought information on their behalf and played a key role in their decisions. Both education groups described how aspects of the patient-practitioner relationship (e.g. continuity, negotiation, trust) and the practitioner's interpersonal communication skills influenced their involvement. Health information served a variety of needs for all groups (e.g. supporting psychosocial, practical and decision support needs). These findings have practical implications for how to involve patients with different education and literacy levels in decision making, and highlight the important role of the patient-practitioner relationship in the process of decision making.