4.5 Article

Concurrent validation of two key health literacy instruments in a South Eastern European population

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 482-486

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cku190

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Public health practice has come to increasing recognition of health promotion and the central role of knowledge, attitude, beliefs and practices in achieving health promotion. Health literacy (HL) is an under-explored topic in South Eastern European countries. There are no HL reports from Albania to date. The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q) and the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) in a population-based sample of adults in Albania. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2013 in Tirana, Albania, including 239 individuals aged >= 18 years (61% women; 87% response). A structured interviewer-administered questionnaire was applied twice (test and retest procedure after 2 weeks) including HLS-EU-Q and TOFHLA instruments. Results: The internal consistency was high for both instruments (Cronbach's alpha for the test procedure was 0.92 for TOFHLA and 0.98 for HLS-EU-Q). Both tools exhibited a high stability over time (Spearman's rho: 0.88 for TOFHLA and 0.87 for HLS-EU). Mean values of both instruments were similar in men and women (mean score for TOFHLA: 76.0 vs. 76.5, P = 0.83; mean score for HLS-EU-Q: 32.2 vs. 32.6, P = 0.63). For both instruments, higher HL scores were significantly associated with younger age, higher educational and economic level and lower body mass index. Conclusions: Our study provides valuable novel evidence on concurrent validation of two major HL instruments in a South Eastern European population-based sample. Future studies should be conducted in order to confirm and expand our findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available