4.5 Article

The Health Literacy Management Scale (HeLMS): A measure of an individual's capacity to seek, understand and use health information within the healthcare setting

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 91, 期 2, 页码 228-235

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.013

关键词

Health literacy; Measurement; Questionnaire design; Patient communication; Patient reported outcomes

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Health literacy refers to an individual's ability to seek, understand, and use health information. This paper describes the development and psychometric testing of the Health Literacy Management Scale (HeLMS). Methods: Content areas were identified from a conceptual framework derived from interviews and concept mapping. Items were generated from. statements from concept mapping participants. Construction (N = 333) and replication (N = 350) samples were participants in chronic disease self-management programs and emergency department attendees. Factor analysis was used to refine constructs and define psychometric properties. Results: Consultations generated 8 scales each with 4-5 items: Understanding health information, Accessing GP healthcare services, Communication with health professionals, Being proactive and Using health information, Patient attitudes towards their health, Social support, and Socioeconomic considerations. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated good fit of the data with the model (RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.97) and all domains had high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > 0.82). Conclusion: The HeLMS has acceptable psychometric properties and assesses a range of health literacy constructs important to patients when seeking, understanding and using health information within the healthcare system. Practice implications: The HeLMS presents a new approach to assessing health literacy in healthcare settings. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据