↓ Skip to main content

Cross-cultural validation of health literacy measurement tools in Italian oncology patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Cross-cultural validation of health literacy measurement tools in Italian oncology patients
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2359-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Zotti, Simone Cocchi, Jerry Polesel, Chiara Cipolat Mis, Donato Bragatto, Silvio Cavuto, Alice Conficconi, Carla Costanzo, Melissa De Giorgi, Christina A. Drace, Federica Fiorini, Laura Gangeri, Andrea Lisi, Rosalba Martino, Paola Mosconi, Angelo Paradiso, Valentina Ravaioli, Ivana Truccolo, Paolo De Paoli

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric characteristics of four Health Literacy (HL) measurement tools, viz. Newest Vital Sign (NVS), Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOFHLA), Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS) and Single question on Self-rated Reading Ability (SrRA) among Italian oncology patients. The original version of the tools were translated from the English language into Italian using a standard forward-backward procedure and according to internationally recognized good practices. Their internal consistency (reliability) and validity (construct, convergent and discriminative) were tested in a sample of 245 consecutive cancer patients recruited from seven Italian health care centers. The internal consistency of the STOFHLA-I was Chronbach's α=0.96 and that of NVS-I was α=0.74. The STOFHLA-I, NVS-I, SILS-I and SrRA-I scores were in a good relative correlation and in all tools the discriminative known-group validity was confirmed. The reliability and validity values were similar to those obtained from other cultural context studies. The psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of NVS, STHOFLA, SILS and SrRA were found to be good, with satisfactory reliability and validity. This indicates that they could be used as a screening tool in Italian patients. Moreover, the use of the same cross-cultural tools, validated in different languages, is essential for implementing multicenter studies to measure and compare the functional HL levels across countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 23%
Librarian 5 19%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Psychology 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,821,204
of 12,588,563 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,331
of 4,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,105
of 263,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,588,563 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.