↓ Skip to main content

The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) at the patient-clinician interface: a qualitative study of what patients and clinicians mean by their HLQ scores

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
92 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) at the patient-clinician interface: a qualitative study of what patients and clinicians mean by their HLQ scores
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2254-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melanie Hawkins, Stephen D Gill, Roy Batterham, Gerald R Elsworth, Richard H Osborne

Abstract

The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) has nine scales that each measure an aspect of the multidimensional construct of health literacy. All scales have good psychometric properties. However, it is the interpretations of data within contexts that must be proven valid, not just the psychometric properties of a measurement instrument. The purpose of this study was to establish the extent of concordance and discordance between individual patient and clinician interpretations of HLQ data in the context of complex case management. Sixteen patients with complex needs completed the HLQ and were interviewed to discuss the reasons for their answers. Also, the clinicians of each of these patients completed the HLQ about their patient, and were interviewed to discuss the reasons for their answers. Thematic analysis of HLQ scores and interview data determined the extent of concordance between patient and clinician HLQ responses, and the reasons for discordance. Highest concordance (80%) between patient and clinician item-response pairs was seen in Scale 1 and highest discordance (56%) was seen in Scale 6. Four themes were identified to explain discordance: 1) Technical or literal meaning of specific words; 2) Patients' changing or evolving circumstances; 3) Different expectations and criteria for assigning HLQ scores; and 4) Different perspectives about a patient's reliance on healthcare providers. This study shows that the HLQ can act as an adjunct to clinical practice to help clinicians understand a patient's health literacy challenges and strengths early in a clinical encounter. Importantly, clinicians can use the HLQ to detect differences between their own perspectives about a patient's health literacy and the patient's perspective, and to initiate discussion to explore this. Provision of training to better detect these differences may assist clinicians to provide improved care. The outcomes of this study contribute to the growing body of international validation evidence about the use of the HLQ in different contexts. More specifically, this study has shown that the HLQ has measurement veracity at the patient and clinician level and may support clinicians to understand patients' health literacy and enable a deeper engagement with healthcare services.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Professor 8 5%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 23%
Psychology 16 9%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 34 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#492,466
of 17,364,317 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#94
of 5,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,109
of 273,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,364,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them