↓ Skip to main content

Generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
346 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
Generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5054-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Orkan Okan, Ester Lopes, Torsten Michael Bollweg, Janine Bröder, Melanie Messer, Dirk Bruland, Emma Bond, Graça S. Carvalho, Kristine Sørensen, Luis Saboga-Nunes, Diane Levin-Zamir, Diana Sahrai, Uwe H. Bittlingmayer, Jürgen M. Pelikan, Malcolm Thomas, Ullrich Bauer, Paulo Pinheiro

Abstract

Health literacy is an important health promotion concern and recently children and adolescents have been the focus of increased academic attention. To assess the health literacy of this population, researchers have been focussing on developing instruments to measure their health literacy. Compared to the wider availability of instruments for adults, only a few tools are known for younger age groups. The objective of this study is to systematically review the field of generic child and adolescent health literacy measurement instruments that are currently available. A systematic literature search was undertaken in five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycNET, ERIC, and FIS) on articles published between January 1990 and July 2015, addressing children and adolescents ≤18 years old. Eligible articles were analysed, data was extracted, and synthesised according to review objectives. Fifteen generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents were identified. All, except two, are self-administered instruments. Seven are objective measures (performance-based tests), seven are subjective measures (self-reporting), and one uses a mixed-method measurement. Most instruments applied a broad and multidimensional understanding of health literacy. The instruments were developed in eight different countries, with most tools originating in the United States (n = 6). Among the instruments, 31 different components related to health literacy were identified. Accordingly, the studies exhibit a variety of implicit or explicit conceptual and operational definitions, and most instruments have been used in schools and other educational contexts. While the youngest age group studied was 7-year-old children within a parent-child study, there is only one instrument specifically designed for primary school children and none for early years. Despite the reported paucity of health literacy research involving children and adolescents, an unexpected number of health literacy measurement studies in children's populations was found. Most instruments tend to measure their own specific understanding of health literacy and not all provide sufficient conceptual information. To advance health literacy instruments, a much more standardised approach is necessary including improved reporting on the development and validation processes. Further research is required to improve health literacy instruments for children and adolescents and to provide knowledge to inform effective interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 346 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 346 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Researcher 22 6%
Other 21 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 79 23%
Unknown 139 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 12%
Social Sciences 40 12%
Psychology 14 4%
Arts and Humanities 11 3%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 148 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,973,684
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,401
of 15,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,292
of 443,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#89
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 443,820 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.