Towards a comprehensive, person-centred assessment of health literacy: translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric test of the Dutch Health Literacy Questionnaire.
Adult
Aged
Biometry
Chronic Disease
Ethnicity
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Literacy
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Social Change
Surveys and Questionnaires
Translations
Young Adult
Health literacy
Health literacy questionnaire
Measurement
Psychometrics
Translation
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Dec 2020
02 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
02
04
2020
accepted:
23
11
2020
entrez:
3
12
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
6
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many health literacy instruments focus on reading skills, numeracy and/or information processing aspects only. In the Netherlands, as in other countries, the need for a comprehensive, person-centred measure of health literacy was observed and consequently the decision was made to translate the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) into Dutch. The HLQ has nine health literacy domains covering people's experiences and skills. This research sought to translate, culturally adapt and psychometrically test the HLQ. The translation and adaptation was done using a systematic approach with forward translation guided by item intents, blind back translation, and a consensus meeting with the developer. The Dutch version of the HLQ was applied in a sample of non-hospitalized, chronically ill patients. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe mean, standard deviation and floor and ceiling effects for all items. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data. Scores on the nine domains of the HLQ were compared across demographic and illness characteristics as a form of known-groups validity. Psychometric analyses included Cronbach's alpha, item-rest and item-remainder correlations. Using CFA, the Dutch HLQ psychometric structure was found to strongly align with the hypothesised (original) nine independent domains of the English version. The nine scales were found to be highly reliable (all scales had alpha between 0.83 and 0.94). Six of the nine HLQ-scales had items that show ceiling-effects. There were no ceiling effects present at the scale level. Scores on the scales of the HLQ differed according to demographic and illness characteristics: people who were older, lower educated and living alone and patients with multiple chronic diseases generally scored lower. The Dutch version of the HLQ is a robust and reliable instrument that measures nine different domains of health literacy. The questionnaire was tested in a sample of chronically ill patients, and should be further tested in the general population as well as in different disease groups. The HLQ is a major addition to currently available instruments in the Netherlands, since it measures health literacy from a multi-dimensional perspective and builds on patients' experiences and skills.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many health literacy instruments focus on reading skills, numeracy and/or information processing aspects only. In the Netherlands, as in other countries, the need for a comprehensive, person-centred measure of health literacy was observed and consequently the decision was made to translate the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) into Dutch. The HLQ has nine health literacy domains covering people's experiences and skills. This research sought to translate, culturally adapt and psychometrically test the HLQ.
METHODS
METHODS
The translation and adaptation was done using a systematic approach with forward translation guided by item intents, blind back translation, and a consensus meeting with the developer. The Dutch version of the HLQ was applied in a sample of non-hospitalized, chronically ill patients. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe mean, standard deviation and floor and ceiling effects for all items. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data. Scores on the nine domains of the HLQ were compared across demographic and illness characteristics as a form of known-groups validity. Psychometric analyses included Cronbach's alpha, item-rest and item-remainder correlations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Using CFA, the Dutch HLQ psychometric structure was found to strongly align with the hypothesised (original) nine independent domains of the English version. The nine scales were found to be highly reliable (all scales had alpha between 0.83 and 0.94). Six of the nine HLQ-scales had items that show ceiling-effects. There were no ceiling effects present at the scale level. Scores on the scales of the HLQ differed according to demographic and illness characteristics: people who were older, lower educated and living alone and patients with multiple chronic diseases generally scored lower.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Dutch version of the HLQ is a robust and reliable instrument that measures nine different domains of health literacy. The questionnaire was tested in a sample of chronically ill patients, and should be further tested in the general population as well as in different disease groups. The HLQ is a major addition to currently available instruments in the Netherlands, since it measures health literacy from a multi-dimensional perspective and builds on patients' experiences and skills.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33267834
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09963-0
pii: 10.1186/s12889-020-09963-0
pmc: PMC7709439
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1850Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : APP1155125
Références
J Rheumatol. 2011 Aug;38(8):1716-9
pubmed: 21807791
Int J Public Health. 2017 Jun;62(5):591-604
pubmed: 28258403
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 21;15:678
pubmed: 26194350
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Apr;79(1):36-42
pubmed: 19896320
Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(5):R152
pubmed: 21933393
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):514-22
pubmed: 16338915
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 07;15(8):
pubmed: 30087254
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
SAGE Open Med. 2018 Sep 21;6:2050312118801250
pubmed: 30319778
Springerplus. 2016 Aug 02;5(1):1232
pubmed: 27536516
J Gen Intern Med. 1995 Oct;10(10):537-41
pubmed: 8576769
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 24;12(2):e0172340
pubmed: 28234987
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 10;13:948
pubmed: 24112855
Scand J Public Health. 2020 Jun 7;:1403494820926428
pubmed: 32508258
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jul;27(7):1695-1710
pubmed: 29464456
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):366-79
pubmed: 20638235
Fam Med. 2004 Sep;36(8):588-94
pubmed: 15343421
Fam Med. 1991 Aug;23(6):433-5
pubmed: 1936717
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jul 16;13:658
pubmed: 23855504
Health Serv Res. 2010 Aug;45(4):1105-20
pubmed: 20500222
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 25;12:80
pubmed: 22276600