The development and psychometric evaluation of the Survey of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Functional Health Literacy

Investigating associations between social determinants, self-efficacy measurement of sleep apnea and CPAP adherence: the SEMSA study

Study objectives

The prospective Self-Efficacy Measure for Sleep Apnea study (SEMSAS) is investigating thresholds for health literacy, self-efficacy and precariousness at obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis to predict CPAP adherence. This paper describes the study protocol and presents baseline data from the ongoing study.

Methods

Eligible individuals had confirmed OSA and were referred to a homecare provider for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy initiation. Data on patient characteristics and comorbidities were collected, along with baseline evaluations of self-efficacy [15-item Self-Efficacy Measure for Sleep Apnea tool (SEMSA-15)], precariousness [Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DipCareQ)], and health literacy (Health Literacy Questionnaire). CPAP adherence over 12 months of follow-up will be determined using remote monitoring of CPAP device data. The primary objective is to define an optimal SEMSA-15 score threshold to predict CPAP adherence at 3- and 12-month follow-up.

Results

Enrollment of 302 participants (71% male, median age 55 years, median body mass index 31.6 kg/m²) is complete. Low self-efficacy (SEMSA-15 score ≤ 2.78) was found in 93/302 participants (31%), and 38 (12.6%) reported precariousness (DipCareQ score > 1); precariousness did not differ significantly between individuals with a SEMSA-15 score ≤ 2.78 versus >2.78. Health literacy was generally good, but was significantly lower in individuals with versus without precariousness, and with low versus high self-efficacy.

Conclusion

SEMSAS is the first study using multidimensional baseline assessment of self-efficacy, health literacy and precariousness, plus other characteristics, to determine future adherence to CPAP, including CPAP adherence trajectories. Collection of follow-up data is underway.

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.