| 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, ICPEG |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
| Librarian | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
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
#13,557,791
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,678
of 7,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,029
of 316,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#88
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 316,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.