Validating the Health Literacy Promotion Practices Assessment Instrument

Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021

BACKGROUND

It has been about 30 years since the first health literacy instrument was developed. This study aimed to review all existing instruments to summarize the current knowledge on the development of existing measurement instruments and their possible translation and validation in other languages different from the original languages.

METHODS

The review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar on all published papers on health literacy instrument development and psychometric properties in English biomedical journals from 1993 to the end of 2021.

RESULTS

The findings were summarized and synthesized on several headings, including general instruments, condition specific health literacy instruments (disease & content), population- specific instruments, and electronic health. Overall, 4848 citations were retrieved. After removing duplicates (n = 2336) and non-related papers (n = 2175), 361 studies (162 papers introducing an instrument and 199 papers reporting translation and psychometric properties of an original instrument) were selected for the final review. The original instruments included 39 general health literacy instruments, 90 condition specific (disease or content) health literacy instruments, 22 population- specific instruments, and 11 electronic health literacy instruments. Almost all papers reported reliability and validity, and the findings indicated that most existing health literacy instruments benefit from some relatively good psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted that there were more than enough instruments for measuring health literacy. In addition, we found that a number of instruments did not report psychometric properties sufficiently. However, evidence suggest that well developed instruments and those reported adequate measures of validation could be helpful if appropriately selected based on objectives of a given study. Perhaps an authorized institution such as World Health Organization should take responsibility and provide a clear guideline for measuring health literacy as appropriate.

Radiation therapist health literacy training: A qualitative study exploring perceived barriers and attitudes

INTRODUCTION

Health literacy (HL) is a universal issue in healthcare. While difficult to assess an individual's HL status, the onus is on the health provider to empower patients to seek understanding of health information provided to them. Universal HL training techniques include implementing plain language and the teach-back method. The research aims to explore the perceptions of Australian radiation therapists (RTTs) learning and implementation of these tools with patients.

METHODS

RTTs attended two communication and HL workshops one week apart. Participants completed three anonymous surveys (before the first workshop, immediately after the second and three months post workshops) and a workshop evaluation was administered after the second workshop. Participants had the opportunity to provide written comments on all surveys and the evaluation form. A thematic analysis was performed on the written comments by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Five themes were revealed after the thematic analysis of the surveys. These themes were: improved patient understanding, impact on professional credibility, practice and timing of using methods, appearing to be condescending to educated patients and increased patient anxiety. The workshop evaluation assessment indicated the success of and improvement for future workshops and revealed seven themes. These were: learning from others, providing a safe environment to share experiences, to be open to learning new methods, more time for learning, role-play aversion, group sizing and thinking beyond the workshops.

CONCLUSION

While strong evidence of using HL tools for improved patient understanding exists, this qualitative review revealed unexpected barriers with implementing both the plain language and teach-back method.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Barriers revealed during HL training could have patient flow on effects when checking for understanding. These challenges need further exploration, to inform all health professionals.