2019
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029668
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psychometric validation of Swedish and Arabic versions of two health literacy questionnaires, eHEALS and HLS-EU-Q16, for use in a Swedish context: a study protocol

Abstract: IntroductionEquity in health and access to healthcare regardless of gender, ethnicity or social position is a major political issue worldwide. Regardless of an individual’s knowledge, motivation and competence, individuals are expected to be engaged and take responsibility of their own care. Migrants have been identified as a vulnerable population in healthcare, and an explanation for the inequity in health and in healthcare is limited health literacy. Furthermore, with increasing digitalisation in healthcare,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
30
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
30
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This was a prospective psychometric evaluation study that included 3 phases: translation, content validity testing, and psychometric evaluation. Data collection for phases 1 and 2 took place in April 2019, and data collection for phase 3 took place from May to September 2019 [ 32 ]. The project was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm, Sweden (No.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This was a prospective psychometric evaluation study that included 3 phases: translation, content validity testing, and psychometric evaluation. Data collection for phases 1 and 2 took place in April 2019, and data collection for phase 3 took place from May to September 2019 [ 32 ]. The project was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm, Sweden (No.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A sum score (ranging from 0 to 16) was calculated, and self-perceived comprehensive health literacy was classified into 3 levels: 0-8, inadequate, 9-12, problematic, and 13-16, sufficient [ 40 ]. The general self-perceived health question “How do you assess your overall health status?” had “very poor, poor, fair, good, or very good” as response options [ 14 , 32 , 41 , 42 ]; the question “How useful is the Internet in helping you make decisions about your health?” had “not useful at all, not useful, unsure, useful, or very useful” as response options and was used to measure the usability of the internet. Importance of the internet was measured by the question “How important is it for you to be able to access health resources on the Internet?” with “not important at all, not important, unsure, important, and very important” as response options [ 15 , 17 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HLS-EU-16 questionnaire was validated in several European countries: in the Catalan population [ 18 ], Italy [ 38 ], Spain [ 39 ], Iceland [ 40 ], France [ 41 ], Belgium [ 42 ], as well as on a sample of the low-health-literate Dutch population [ 43 ]. It was also validated in European immigrant populations, in an Arabic population in Sweden [ 44 ] and in Somali women in Norway [ 45 ]. In Eastern Europe, the scale was validated on a representative sample of the general parent population in Hungary [ 46 ] and in the adult population of Poland [ 9 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…eHealth literacy will be measured by the shorter Swedish version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire. The Swedish version of European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire will be used at baseline and follow-up [39,40]. The instrument consists of 16 items focusing on the following 4 dimensions of health literacy: the ability to access and obtain health information, ability to understand health information (not only in written form), ability to process and appraise health information, and ability to apply and use health information.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%