The Health Literacy Questionnaire: Initial Validity Testing in a Norwegian Sample

The relationship between gender, psychosocial factors, pain, health literacy and health-related quality of life in parents of Norwegian adolescents one year into the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Stress impacts healthy behaviours and may influence life and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). A stressful event occurred when the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020. The present study aims to explore possible gender differences in stress, psychosocial factors (self-efficacy, self-esteem, loneliness), pain, HL, and HRQOL in parents of adolescents one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore possible associations between gender, demographic and psychosocial factors, pain, HL, and HRQOL.

METHODS

Parents of adolescents aged 16-17 took part in the study from January to February 2021, when the COVID-19 pandemic was ongoing. Data on socio-demographics, stress, self-efficacy, self-esteem, pain, HL, loneliness, and HRQOL were collected. HRQOL was assessed using RAND-36.

RESULTS

Among the 320 parents from the general population, the mean age was 47.6 (standard deviation (SD) = 4.6) years, 81% were mothers, 79% were married or cohabiting, 81% had a university degree, and the majority worked full time (78%) or part time (13%). The average pain score was low, 0.48 (95% CI [0.43-0.54]). However, 50% of the parents reported persistent pain and more mothers reported persistent pain compared to fathers (53% vs. 37%). The parents' mean (SD) score for RAND-36 was 52.1 (95% CI [51.2-53.0]) for the physical component summary (PCS) score and 51.0 (95% CI [50.0-52.1]) for the mental component summary (MCS) score. Mothers reported significantly lower scores for all the eight RAND-36 domains and the PCS and MCS scores. Adjusting for gender, age, living condition, education, pain, HL, self-efficacy and loneliness, we revealed no associations between stress and RAND-36-PCS. University education of four years or more was positively associated (B = 3.29, 95% CI: [0.78-5.80]) with RAND-36-PCS, while persistent pain was negatively associated (B = -7.13, CI: [-9.20- -5.06]). We identified a strong negative association between RAND-36-MCS and stress (B = -43.11, CI: [-48.83- -37.38]) and a positive association with older age (B = 0.21, CI: [ 0.04, 0.39)].

CONCLUSION

One year into the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified a strong negative association between stress and mental HRQOL, while pain was strongly negatively associated with physical HRQOL.

Health literacy strengths and challenges of people in New South Wales prisons: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

BACKGROUND

Health literacy is an important factor for enabling people to manage their health and live long fulfilling lives. People in prison are frequently from marginalised communities, often out of reach of conventional community based health organisations, and have poorer health outcomes. It is essential to understanding the health literacy profiles of people in prison, and its contribution to the well-established health inequities and outcomes of this population. This study aimed to use a multi-dimensional health literacy measurement tool to describe the strengths and challenges of adults incarcerated in NSW prisons.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted for people in prison across 14 publicly operated metropolitan prisons. Data were collected from 471 participants using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Participant characteristics and health conditions were also collected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Effect sizes (ES) for standardised differences in means were used to describe the magnitude of difference between participant characteristic groups.

RESULTS

Participants' median age was 38.0 (range 19 - 91) years. Males comprised 81% of the sample, 21% identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, and 53% reported a health problem. People in prison had lower scores for all nine HLQ scales when compared to the general Australian population. Small to medium ES were seen for mean differences between most demographic groups. Compared to males, females had lower scores for several of the HLQ scales including 'having sufficient information to manage health' (ES 0.30 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.07, 0.53]), 'ability to actively engage with health care professionals' (ES 0.30 [95% CI 0.06, 0.53]), 'navigating the healthcare system' (ES 0.30 [95% CI 0.06, 0.53]), and, 'ability to find good health information' (ES 0.33 [95% CI 0.10, 0.57]). Differing health literacy scale scores with small to medium ES were found when comparing participants by legal status. Mainly small ES were seen when comparing other participant characteristic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into the health literacy strengths and challenges for people in NSW prisons. These findings highlight the important role health literacy could have in addressing health disparities in this vulnerable population and can inform prison health services.

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.

Validity arguments for patient-reported outcomes: justifying the intended interpretation and use of data

BACKGROUND

Contrary to common usage in the health sciences, the term "valid" refers not to the properties of a measurement instrument but to the extent to which data-derived inferences are appropriate, meaningful, and useful for intended decision making. The aim of this study was to determine how validity testing theory (the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing) and methodology (Kane's argument-based approach to validation) from education and psychology can be applied to validation practices for patient-reported outcomes that are measured by instruments that assess theoretical constructs in health.

METHODS

The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) was used as an example of a theory-based self-report assessment for the purposes of this study. Kane's five inferences (scoring, generalisation, extrapolation, theory-based interpretation, and implications) for theoretical constructs were applied to the general interpretive argument for the HLQ. Existing validity evidence for the HLQ was identified and collated (as per the Standards recommendation) through a literature review and mapped to the five inferences. Evaluation of the evidence was not within the scope of this study.

RESULTS

The general HLQ interpretive argument was built to demonstrate Kane's five inferences (and associated warrants and assumptions) for theoretical constructs, and which connect raw data to the intended interpretation and use of the data. The literature review identified 11 HLQ articles from which 57 sources of validity evidence were extracted and mapped to the general interpretive argument.

CONCLUSIONS

Kane's five inferences and associated warrants and assumptions were demonstrated in relation to the HLQ. However, the process developed in this study is likely to be suitable for validation planning for other measurement instruments. Systematic and transparent validation planning and the generation (or, as in this study, collation) of relevant validity evidence supports developers and users of PRO instruments to determine the extent to which inferences about data are appropriate, meaningful and useful (i.e., valid) for intended decisions about the health and care of individuals, groups and populations.

A validation study of the Norwegian version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire: A robust nine-dimension factor model

Objective: This study aimed to undertake a rigorous psychometric evaluation of the nine-scale Norwegian version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) based on data from a sample of people with psoriasis. Methods: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from 825 adults with psoriasis who previously participated in the Norwegian Climate Heliotherapy programme. To investigate the factorial validity of the Norwegian HLQ, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using Stata. Results: A highly restricted model fit with no cross-loadings or correlated residuals was acceptable for three of the nine scales (‘Feeling understood and supported by health-care providers’, ‘Appraisal of health information’ and ‘Ability to find good health information’). After minor model adjustments of the other scales, one-factor models were acceptable. All scales showed acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.71 to 0.87. Except for three items, all items had high to acceptable factor loadings. Conclusions: This study of the Norwegian HLQ replicates the original factor structure of the Australian HLQ, indicating the questionnaire has cogent and independent scales with good reliability. Researchers, programme implementers and policymakers could use the Norwegian version of the HLQ with confidence to generate reliable information on health literacy for different purposes.