Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOMERACT 10: 10th International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Kota Kinabalu, Borneo - May 4–8, 2010

Health Literacy: What Is It and Why Is It Important to Measure?

RACHELLE BUCHBINDER, ROY BATTERHAM, SABINA CICIRIELLO, STAN NEWMAN, BEN HORGAN, ERIN UEFFING, TAMARA RADER, PETER S. TUGWELL and RICHARD H. OSBORNE
The Journal of Rheumatology August 2011, 38 (8) 1791-1797; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110406
RACHELLE BUCHBINDER
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rachelle.buchbinder@med.monash.edu.au
ROY BATTERHAM
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SABINA CICIRIELLO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STAN NEWMAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
BEN HORGAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ERIN UEFFING
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAMARA RADER
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PETER S. TUGWELL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RICHARD H. OSBORNE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

This report summarizes the proceedings of the first Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Health Literacy Special Interest Group workshop at the OMERACT 10 conference. Health literacy refers to an individual’s capacity to seek, understand, and use health information. Discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required. A nominal group process involving 27 workshop participants, comprising a patient group (n = 12) and a healthcare professional and researcher group (n = 15), confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. Sixteen themes were identified: access to information; cognitive capacity; disease; expression/communication; finances; health professionals; health system; information; literacy/numeracy; management skills; medication; patient approach; dealing with problems; psychological characteristics; social supports; and time. Each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context. There were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. The detailed concepts across themes provided new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. These data will be used to derive a more comprehensive measure of health literacy.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • HEALTH LITERACY
  • OUTCOME MEASURES

A new health literacy special interest group (SIG) convened for the first time at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10. At its inaugural meeting, the concept of health literacy and its development was presented, from its inception as a term first used in 1974 to argue that school curricula should include health education to ensure pupils become “literate” in health1, to subsequent, more technical meanings such as the skills patients need to negotiate a complex healthcare system2. The importance of measuring an individual’s health literacy to inform the clinician, and measuring population health literacy to inform policy-makers and researchers, was discussed. The strengths and limitations of the ways in which health literacy is currently assessed were also presented.

In determining whether a new SIG for health literacy should be formed, we considered the potential overlap with 2 other OMERACT groups: the Effective Consumer SIG and Health Equity SIG. Poor health literacy can undermine attempts at health equity and a person’s ability to be an effective consumer; in this way, health literacy can be considered to be one factor that underpins both these issues3. The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) measures how effective people are at dealing with their chronic condition and making decisions about their healthcare4,5. It comprises 5 domains: (1) use of health information; (2) clarifying personal priorities; (3) communicating with others; (4) negotiating roles and taking control; and (5) deciding and taking action. For an individual to have any chance of being an “effective” consumer, they first need to have the right and the means to access healthcare, and the skills and knowledge to pursue the care needed.

Health literacy is also central to health inequalities; it is the marginalized groups with low personal and economic resources and low education that have the greatest difficulties understanding and accessing services6. Major advances in reducing social inequalities in health are likely to be derived through greater attention, at both the clinical and policy levels, to health literacy. Given this, it was fitting that the Effective Consumer and Health Equity SIG members participated with the Health Literacy group to advance our understanding of measurement in this field and to support OMERACT to improve outcomes equitably for people with musculoskeletal disorders.

The participants at the Health Literacy SIG meeting also took part in a structured group discussion using the nominal group technique in which they explored health literacy from the patient and health professional perspectives. These data were then discussed and compared with a recently developed patient-centered conceptual framework7, and measure of health literacy developed by some of the authors (unpublished observations). The discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required.

It is intended that the data collected at OMERACT 10 will be used to inform the development of an improved health literacy measure that will be tested to ensure that it fulfils the criteria of the OMERACT filter8. The purpose of this report is to summarize the proceedings of the first OMERACT Health Literacy SIG meeting and to outline the future plans of the group.

The Concept of Health Literacy and Why Measure It

There are several definitions of health literacy (Table 1)2,9,10,11,12. Each fundamentally includes reference to an individual’s capacity to seek, understand, and use health information7, although many also consider the interaction between an individual’s skills or abilities, and education, health, and social and cultural influences10.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Some definitions of health literacy.

Irrespective of how it is defined, health literacy has an important influence upon health and is likely to be a significant determinant of health inequity13,14. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic diseases, low health literacy has been associated with a lack of knowledge about their condition and medications15,16, greater problems communicating with healthcare providers17, poorer self-management skills18, and greater use of outpatient services19. Low health literacy has also been associated with infrequent receipt of preventive services20, increased hospitalization and use of emergency care21,22,23, and increased mortality24. More positively, interventions that improve health literacy have the potential to improve population health and reduce health inequities25.

With the increasing focus upon patient-centered approaches and augmentation of self-care for people with chronic diseases, the concept of health literacy has become highly relevant in many settings. At the clinical level, healthcare professionals need to know patients’ capacity to process and understand health information, to be able to communicate with them effectively and assess their ability to navigate the healthcare system appropriately. At the population level, policy-makers need to understand the community’s capacity to gain access to and understand health information, to be able to set appropriate policies, and provide appropriate resources. In addition, researchers need to understand these issues to make correct judgments about research methods and findings.

Current Measures of Health Literacy

Several measures exist to assess health literacy at the individual (clinical) and population level. However, they vary in content and purpose and none appears comprehensive26. The most widely used clinical measures include the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), which tests ability to read and pronounce a list of words27, and the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA), which tests reading comprehension and numeracy28, whereas the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) is designed to be a quick clinical screening instrument29 (Table 2). In a recent population-based survey of health literacy using these 3 measures conducted in Victoria, Australia, the prevalence of inadequate health literacy ranged between 7% and 21%, depending upon the measure30.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

The Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM)27, Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA)28, and Newest Vital Sign (NVS)29 instruments.

At the population level, proxy measures of health literacy have also been derived from national surveys of literacy that use health-related materials26. The items and scoring properties are not publicly available and, like the individual measures, it is not clear that the scoring categories discriminate between groups with different levels of health literacy, or how this information can be applied in a clinical or public health context26.

All the currently available measures of health literacy have focused primarily upon measuring reading, comprehension, and numeracy skills, yet, as the definitions of health literacy in common usage suggest, the concept of health literacy is much broader than literacy skills alone26.

Health Literacy from the Patient and Health Professional Perspective: Methods and Results of a Nominal Group Technique Exercise

To develop a model of health literacy that can be generalized across settings, and to provide new and deep insights from both the patient’s perspective and the healthcare professional perspective, participants who attended the Health Literacy SIG session were separated into 2 groups: one comprising patients with a range of rheumatic conditions (n = 12), and one comprising healthcare professionals and researchers (n = 15). Separation of the 2 groups in this way facilitated frank discussion, and broad and rapid brainstorming. A nominal group process, a means for obtaining the most comprehensive possible range of ideas from individuals on a topic of interest31, was undertaken within each group to maximize the richness and depth of the data obtained.

A carefully crafted seeding statement, based on the core elements of the health literacy definitions, was presented to individuals who worked alone to generate ideas in response to the statement. The seeding statement for patients was, “Thinking broadly about your experiences in trying to look after your health, what abilities does a person with arthritis need to have, in order to get, understand, and use health information to make informed decisions about their health?”. The seeding statement for the health professional/researcher group was, “Thinking broadly about your experiences in looking after people with arthritis, what abilities does a person with arthritis need to have, in order to get, understand, and use health information to make informed decisions about their health?”.

Participants were asked to write their responses according to the following rules: one idea per statement, use bullet points, make them brief, and work alone for 5 minutes. The nominal group technique uses a facilitator, who then asks that the ideas be presented to the group in an egalitarian manner, whereby each participant in turn presents one item on their list, starting with the first, until all items have been presented. Participants were discouraged from passing judgments about the statement but were encouraged to seek clarification of the nature or content of the statement if necessary. The critical advantage of this approach is that the perspective of individuals is collected in a manner that is not influenced or biased by the researcher or influenced by other (and at times dominant) group members. At the group process of this task, the 2 groups combined and the concepts generated by the 2 groups were discussed and any differences were highlighted.

The statements generated are shown in Table 3. A semi-grammatical approach to coding each statement was taken. Within each statement, the subject and the object(s) of the sentence were identified and then the defining details noted. We also characterized the nature of that to which the statement is referring (e.g., knowledge, skills, attributes, etc.). Once coding was complete, categories were mostly derived from the objects embodied in the statements. In some cases, the groupings were derived from a combination of the “nature of statement” and the object column, for example, Knowledge of Disease.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Concepts derived from workshop participants in response to seeding statement grouped by theme (disease or health system). The theme was usually based on the grammatical “object” of the phrase.

In response to the seeding statements, the 2 groups produced 98 statements, 45 from the patients and 53 from the health professionals/researchers. Using the coding approach, 16 themes emerged and each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context (Table 3).

The statements were generated in response to the seeding statement, which in turn was based on the core elements of the definitions of health literacy, namely “ability to access, understand, and use health information to make informed decisions about their health”2,9,10,11. The emergent themes, as expected, cover virtually all the elements of the extended definitions (Table 1) in one way or another. Two themes were somewhat different: Finances (e.g., Having money to get healthcare; Access to a healthcare plan; Get enough money and use it for health) and some elements of the Health Professionals theme. It is also important to note that while the seeding statements included the term “musculoskeletal,” there were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. Some of the new elements also included trust in and getting time from health professionals, and general practitioners being up to date.

The concept of trust in health professionals is a particularly important one. Trust or lack of trust may be based on the adequacy of past experiences with health professionals or it may reflect more personal issues. Trust is clearly an important issue in determining a person’s receptivity to health information.

A New Concept of Health Literacy and the Health Literacy Measurement Scale (HeLMS)

Preliminary work by Jordan, et al7 to conceptualize health literacy from the patient perspective was presented to participants at the conclusion of the workshop. The development of this conceptualization included consultation with patients and members of the community and used the same definition of health literacy as used for the nominal group technique exercise at OMERACT 10. Qualitative methods were used to develop the conceptual framework and included interviews with 48 individuals across 3 distinct population groups: those with a chronic condition, the general community, and individuals who had recently presented to a metropolitan public hospital emergency department.

Seven key abilities were identified as being needed for an individual to be able to seek, understand, and use health information: (1) knowing when to seek health information; (2) knowing where to seek health information; (3) verbal communication skills; (4) assertiveness; (5) literacy skills; (6) capacity to process and retain information; and (7) skills in applying health-related information.

Just as in the nominal group technique exercise at OMERACT 10, broader contextual factors such as the healthcare system, socioeconomic factors, social support, education, cultural influences, and personal health attitudes were identified as important, as were factors related to the patient-health professional relationship. The latter may include patient traits such as their physical and emotional disposition, fear and/or anxiety, and their trust and confidence in the healthcare professional; factors for healthcare professionals include the use of complicated medical terminology and how they deliver information; and interaction factors include how the patient and healthcare professional exchange information and acknowledge their respective expert and lay knowledge.

Based on specific elements of health literacy identified as important by patients, a promising new health literacy measure, the Health Literacy Measurement Scale (HeLMS), has been developed for application at either an individual (clinical) or a population level (unpublished observations).

DISCUSSION

The nominal group process performed at the health literacy workshop at OMERACT 10 confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales currently do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. It also provided further evidence that health literacy is an important concept to measure, as it is clearly a modifier of treatment outcome, particularly in those individuals with fewer resources and/or those marginalized in society.

Participants endorsed the development of a generic, in contrast to a disease-specific, measure of health literacy that reflects the patients’ perspective and would be relevant across different cultural settings. This point was evidenced by the absence of statements and overarching concepts that could be regarded as musculoskeletal-specific (Table 3).

Overall, the detailed content of the themes across knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, and context provided tangible actions by which health literacy interventions could be operationalized. This contrasts with the health literacy definitions (Table 1) and most currently available tools (e.g., REALM, TOFHLA, NVS; see Table 2), which only go some distance toward identifying potential health literacy difficulties a person might have and offer little about what may be done about it.

When the content of the HeLMS is compared with the concepts derived from the nominal group technique exercise at OMERACT, it is obvious that greater depth and breadth has been achieved with the OMERACT exercise. These differences may have occurred because of the different processes of data analysis (cluster analysis vs thematic analysis), as well as the somewhat different samples (the OMERACT sample was from an international audience). While the limited range of constructs in the HeLMS in part reflects the rigorous psychometric processes required to generate a parsimonious, but useful, set of scales, the Health Literacy SIG output provides new insights into how the field can be advanced. For example, future work should include some or all of the following dimensions: dealing with disease, health professional attributes, trustfulness, knowledge of the healthcare system, and self-management and problem-solving skills.

The concept of health literacy as enumerated by the OMERACT 10 workshop participants is also much broader than the individual skills and attributes identified as being important to be an effective consumer in the EC-17. Although many of the EC-17 items have relevance to one or more of the 16 health literacy themes4, the EC-17 does not identify health professional and broader contextual factors. In an evaluation of the EC-17 in Ireland, people with arthritis showed deficits in 2 domains (negotiating roles and taking control, and making decisions and taking action), which persisted even after people completed self-management programs5. This suggests that also addressing health professional and broader contextual factors may be essential to optimizing an individual’s health literacy and consumer effectiveness.

The detailed concepts across themes also provide new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. Clear guidance is embodied in the themes across a broad range of an individual’s life and across the healthcare and social services sectors that can assist in improving services and designing interventions. The themes also provide guidance for the development of improved measures of health literacy.

The OMERACT Health Literacy, Equity and Effective Consumer special interest groups now have the opportunity to use the data obtained from this workshop to expand or redevelop the current health literacy assessment tools. Over the next 2 years, we will undertake further consultation with patients and health professionals within OMERACT to derive a more comprehensive measure that fulfils the OMERACT filter8, and advances measurement of health literacy in clinical practice, clinical trials, and community interventions. The methods that will be used to improve health literacy questionnaire measurement will include concept mapping32, item testing in target populations of people with low literacy, and rigorous validation in clinical and community settings33. The utility of a new questionnaire becomes evident through the value researchers, clinicians, and health services place on the data it returns. While both health literacy and effective consumer scales are appealing concepts and these 2 approaches are likely to be valuable complements to other, more traditional disease-specific measures, it will be important to document how the results from the scales inform practice and research such that improvements in patient outcomes occur.

Footnotes

  • R. Buchbinder is supported in part by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship; R.H. Osborne is supported in part by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Population Health Career Development Award.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Simonds S
    . Health education as social policy. Health Educ Mono 1974;2:1–25.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. American Medical Association Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy
    . Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA 1999;281:552–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Jordan J,
    2. Briggs A,
    3. Brand C,
    4. Osborne R
    . Enhancing patient engagement in chronic disease self-management support initiatives in Australia: the need for an integrated approach. Med J Aust 2008;189:S9–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kristjansson E,
    2. Tugwell P,
    3. Wilson A,
    4. Brooks P,
    5. Driedger S,
    6. Gallois C,
    7. et al.
    Development of the effective musculoskeletal consumer scale. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1392–400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Santesso N,
    2. Rader T,
    3. Wells GA,
    4. O’Connor AM,
    5. Brooks PM,
    6. Driedger M,
    7. et al.
    Responsiveness of the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17). J Rheumatol 2009;36:2087–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Coulter A,
    2. Ellins J
    . Patient-focused interventions: a review of the evidence. London: Health Foundation; 2006.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Jordan J,
    2. Buchbinder R,
    3. Osborne R
    . Conceptualising health literacy from the patient perspective. Pat Educ Counsel 2010;79:36–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Brooks P,
    3. Strand C,
    4. Tugwell P
    . The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998;25:198–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Health promotion glossary. Health Prom Intern 1998;13:349–64.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Nielson-Bohlman L,
    2. Panzer A,
    3. Hamlin B,
    4. Kindig D
    . Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2004.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Sihota S,
    2. Lennard L
    . National Consumer Council. Health literacy. London: National Consumer Council; June 2004.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kickbusch I
    . Health literacy: addressing the health and education divide. Health Prom Int 2001;16:289–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Sentell TL,
    2. Halpin HA
    . Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:862–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lloyd LLJ,
    2. Ammary NJ,
    3. Epstein LG,
    4. Johnson R,
    5. Rhee K
    . A transdisciplinary approach to improve health literacy and reduce disparities. Health Prom Pract 2006;7:331–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Williams M,
    2. Baker D,
    3. Parker R,
    4. Nurss J
    . Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their chronic disease. A study of patients with hypertension and diabetes. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:166–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gazmararian JA,
    2. Williams MV,
    3. Peel J,
    4. Baker DW
    . Health literacy and knowledge of chronic disease. Pat Ed Counsel 2003;51:267–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Schillinger D,
    2. Bindman A,
    3. Wang F,
    4. Stewart A,
    5. Piette J
    . Functional health literacy and the quality of physician-patient communication among diabetes patients. Pat Ed Counsel 2004;52:315–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Kripalani S,
    2. Henderson LE,
    3. Chiu EY,
    4. Robertson R,
    5. Kolm P,
    6. Jacobson TA
    . Predictors of medication self-management skill in a low-literacy population. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:852–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Gordon M-M,
    2. Hampson R,
    3. Capell HA,
    4. Madhok R
    . Illiteracy in rheumatoid arthritis patients as determined by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) score. Rheumatol 2002;41:750–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Scott TL,
    2. Gazmararian JA,
    3. Williams MV,
    4. Baker DW
    . Health literacy and preventive health care use among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Med Care 2002;40:395–404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Pincus T,
    2. Sokka T,
    3. Swearingen C,
    4. Swearingen T,
    5. Daltroy L,
    6. Davis T
    . Analysis of a rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine (REALM) and education level in patients with rheumatic diseases [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43 Suppl:S109.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Baker DW,
    2. Parker RM,
    3. Williams MV,
    4. Clark WS
    . Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:791–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Baker DW,
    2. Gazmararian JA,
    3. Williams MV,
    4. Scott T,
    5. Parker RM,
    6. Green D,
    7. et al.
    Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Pub Health 2002;92:1278–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Sudore RL,
    2. Yaffe K,
    3. Satterfield S,
    4. Harris TB,
    5. Mehta KM,
    6. Simonsick EM,
    7. et al.
    Limited literacy and mortality in the elderly. The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:806–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Carmona RH
    . Health literacy: A national priority. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:803.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Jordan J,
    2. Osborne R,
    3. Buchbinder R
    . Critical appraisal of health literacy indices reveals variable underlying constructs, narrow content and psychometric weaknesses. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:366–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Davis TC,
    2. Long SW,
    3. Jackson RH,
    4. Mayeaux EJ,
    5. George RB,
    6. Murphy PW,
    7. et al.
    Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine: A shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 1993;25:391–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Parker R,
    2. Baker D,
    3. Williams M,
    4. Nurss J
    . The Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:537–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Weiss BD,
    2. Mays MZ,
    3. Martz W,
    4. Castro KM,
    5. DeWalt DA,
    6. Pignone MP,
    7. et al.
    Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:514–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Barber M,
    2. Staples M,
    3. Osborne R,
    4. Clerehan R,
    5. Elders C,
    6. Buchbinder R
    . Up to a quarter of the Australian population may have suboptimal health literacy depending upon the measurement tool: results from a population-based survey. Health Prom Intern 2009;24:252–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Van der Ven A,
    2. Dalbecq A
    . The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. Am J Pub Health 1972;62:337–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    2. Fries JF,
    3. Hewlett S,
    4. Osborne R,
    5. Newman S,
    6. Ciciriello S,
    7. et al.
    Patient perspective workshop: Moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient reported outcomes. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1711–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Osborne R,
    2. Elsworth G,
    3. Whitfield K
    . The Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ): An outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Pat Ed Counsel 2007;66:192–201.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 38, Issue 8
1 Aug 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Health Literacy: What Is It and Why Is It Important to Measure?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Health Literacy: What Is It and Why Is It Important to Measure?
RACHELLE BUCHBINDER, ROY BATTERHAM, SABINA CICIRIELLO, STAN NEWMAN, BEN HORGAN, ERIN UEFFING, TAMARA RADER, PETER S. TUGWELL, RICHARD H. OSBORNE
The Journal of Rheumatology Aug 2011, 38 (8) 1791-1797; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110406

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Health Literacy: What Is It and Why Is It Important to Measure?
RACHELLE BUCHBINDER, ROY BATTERHAM, SABINA CICIRIELLO, STAN NEWMAN, BEN HORGAN, ERIN UEFFING, TAMARA RADER, PETER S. TUGWELL, RICHARD H. OSBORNE
The Journal of Rheumatology Aug 2011, 38 (8) 1791-1797; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110406
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • The Concept of Health Literacy and Why Measure It
    • Current Measures of Health Literacy
    • Health Literacy from the Patient and Health Professional Perspective: Methods and Results of a Nominal Group Technique Exercise
    • A New Concept of Health Literacy and the Health Literacy Measurement Scale (HeLMS)
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

OMERACT 10: 10th International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Kota Kinabalu, Borneo - May 4–8, 2010

  • OMERACT Magnetic Resonance Imaging Initiative on Structural and Inflammatory Lesions in Ankylosing Spondylitis — Report of a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 10 on Sacroiliac Joint and Spine Lesions
  • Synovitis and Osteitis Are Very Frequent in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Remission: Results from an MRI Study of 294 Patients in Clinical Remission or Low Disease Activity State
  • The OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (PsAMRIS) Is Reliable and Sensitive to Change: Results from an OMERACT Workshop
Show more OMERACT 10: 10th International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Kota Kinabalu, Borneo - May 4–8, 2010

Patient-reported Outcomes

  • OMERACT Magnetic Resonance Imaging Initiative on Structural and Inflammatory Lesions in Ankylosing Spondylitis — Report of a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 10 on Sacroiliac Joint and Spine Lesions
  • Synovitis and Osteitis Are Very Frequent in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Remission: Results from an MRI Study of 294 Patients in Clinical Remission or Low Disease Activity State
  • The OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (PsAMRIS) Is Reliable and Sensitive to Change: Results from an OMERACT Workshop
Show more Patient-reported Outcomes

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire