Measurement Variation Across Health Literacy Assessments: Implications for Assessment Selection in Research and Practice

被引:193
作者
Haun, Jolie [1 ]
Luther, Stephen [1 ]
Dodd, Virginia [2 ]
Donaldson, Patricia [3 ]
机构
[1] Vet Adm HSR&D & RR&D Ctr Excellence, Tampa, FL 33637 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Dept Hlth Educ & Behav, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] Univ Florida, Dept Community Dent & Behav Sci, Gainesville, FL USA
关键词
WORD RECOGNITION INSTRUMENT; ADULT LITERACY; RAPID ESTIMATE; IDENTIFY PATIENTS; LIMITED LITERACY; CARE; VALIDATION; TOOL; DISPARITIES; QUESTIONS;
D O I
10.1080/10810730.2012.712615
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
National priorities and recent federal initiatives have brought health literacy to the forefront in providing safe accessible care. Having valid and reliable health literacy measures is a critical factor in meeting patients' health literacy needs. In this study, the authors examined variation across three brief health literacy instruments in categorizing health literacy levels and identifying associated factors. The authors screened 378 veterans using the short form of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults; the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine; and a 4-Item Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool (known as the BRIEF). They analyzed data using prevalence estimates, Pearson product moment correlations, and logistic regression. When categorizing individuals' health literacy, agreement among instruments was present for 37% of the sample. There were consistencies; however, categorization and estimated risk factors varied by instrument. Depending on instrument, increased age, low education, minority status, and self-reported poor reading level were associated with low health literacy. Findings suggest that these instruments measure health literacy differently and are likely conceptually different. As the use of health literacy screening gains momentum, alignment between instrument and intended purpose is essential; in some cases, multiple instruments may be appropriate. When selecting an instrument, one should consider style of administration, purpose for measure, and availability of time and resources.
引用
收藏
页码:141 / 159
页数:19
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, HLTH PEOPL 2010, V1
[2]  
Arozullah AM, 2006, J GEN INTERN MED, V21, P140, DOI [10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00300.x, 10.1007/s11606-006-0248-z]
[3]   The meaning and the measure of health literacy [J].
Baker, David W. .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2006, 21 (08) :878-883
[4]   Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy [J].
Baker, DW ;
Williams, MV ;
Parker, RM ;
Gazmararian, JA ;
Nurss, J .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1999, 38 (01) :33-42
[5]   Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees [J].
Baker, DW ;
Gazmararian, JA ;
Williams, MV ;
Scott, T ;
Parker, RM ;
Green, D ;
Ren, JL ;
Peel, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2002, 92 (08) :1278-1283
[6]   Relation between literacy, race, and stage of presentation among low-income patients with prostate cancer [J].
Bennett, CL ;
Ferreira, MR ;
Davis, TC ;
Kaplan, J ;
Weinberger, M ;
Kuzel, T ;
Seday, MA ;
Sartor, O .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1998, 16 (09) :3101-3104
[7]   A TOOL FOR MEASURING AND ANALYZING END USER COMPUTING ABILITIES [J].
CHENEY, PH ;
NELSON, RR .
INFORMATION PROCESSING & MANAGEMENT, 1988, 24 (02) :199-203
[8]  
Chew LD, 2004, FAM MED, V36, P588
[9]   Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population [J].
Chew, Lisa D. ;
Griffin, Joan M. ;
Partin, Melissa R. ;
Noorbaloochi, Siamak ;
Grill, Joseph P. ;
Snyder, Annamay ;
Bradley, Katharine A. ;
Nugent, Sean M. ;
Baines, Alisha D. ;
VanRyn, Michelle .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 23 (05) :561-566
[10]  
Cooper L.A., 2003, UNEQUAL TREATMENT CO, P552