↓ Skip to main content

Measuring health literacy among low literate people: an exploratory feasibility study with the HLS-EU questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Measuring health literacy among low literate people: an exploratory feasibility study with the HLS-EU questionnaire
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4391-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannelore Storms, Neree Claes, Bert Aertgeerts, Stephan Van den Broucke

Abstract

Health literacy (HL) is defined as necessary competencies to make well-informed decisions. As patients' decision making is a key element of patient-centered health care, insight in patients' HL might help healthcare professionals to organize their care accordingly. This is particularly true for people in a vulnerable situation, potentially with limited HL, who are, for instance, at greater risk of having limited access to care [1, 2]. As HL correlates with education, instruments should allow inclusion of low literate people. To that end, the relatively new instrument, HLS-EU-Q47, was subjected to a comprehensibility test, its shorter version, HLS-EU-Q16, was not. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine feasibility of HLS-EU-Q16 (in Dutch) for use in a population of people with low literacy. Purposive sampling of adults with low (yearly) income (< €16,965.47) and limited education (maximum high school), with Dutch language proficiency. Exclusion criteria were: psychiatric, neurodegenerative diseases or impairments. To determine suitability (length, comprehension and layout) participants were randomly distributed either HLS-EU-Q16 or a modified version and were interviewed directly afterwards by one researcher. To determine feasibility a qualitative approach was chosen: cognitive interviews were carried out using the verbal probing technique. Thirteen participants completed HLS-EU-Q16 (n = 7) or the modified version (n = 6). Questions about 'disease prevention' or 'appraisal' of information are frequently reported to be incomprehensible. Difficulties are attributed to vocabulary, sentence structure and the decision process (abstraction, distinguishing 'appraising' from 'applying' information, indecisive on the appropriate response). HLS-EU-Q16 is a suitable instrument to determine HL in people with limited literacy. However, to facilitate the use and interpretation, some questions would benefit from minor adjustments: by simplifying wording or providing explanatory, contextual information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 21%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Psychology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 22 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,267,179
of 14,533,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,477
of 9,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,143
of 267,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,533,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 267,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.