[Development and evaluation of an assessment tool for organisational health literacy].

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Daniel Lüdecke, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Martin Härter, Izumi Klockmann, Johanna Heeg
{"title":"[Development and evaluation of an assessment tool for organisational health literacy].","authors":"Daniel Lüdecke, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Martin Härter, Izumi Klockmann, Johanna Heeg","doi":"10.1007/s00103-025-04018-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In research on organisational health literacy (OHL), there is a lack of standardised assessment tools for measuring and comparing the OHL of different organisations. This article therefore examines (1) which criteria for assessing OHL can be derived from research and practice, (2) how these are implemented in organisations and (3) the psychometric properties of a questionnaire developed from them.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>OHL criteria were identified by means of literature research and workshops. The criteria were agreed upon in a Delphi study and an assessment tool was developed. An online questionnaire was developed and psychometrically tested. Measures such as Cronbach's alpha, item selectivity and difficulty, and floor/ceiling effects were used for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 500 criteria were identified and an assessment tool of 77 criteria (5 main categories and 17 sub-categories) was developed. The subject of \"Barrier-free access and navigation\" was best implemented in healthcare organisations. The psychometric properties showed a good to excellent internal consistency of the questionnaire structure. Only one main category showed significant floor effects; there were no ceiling effects. At the item level, ceiling effects were found for 13 items, and 39 items showed a satisfactory discriminatory power.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>OHL is a multidimensional construct that is well represented by the assessment tool. Further validation with larger samples is necessary for the use of the tool as a questionnaire for measuring OHL and for comparison between institutions. A reduction in the number of criteria can improve the consistency of the content of the main and sub-categories.</p>","PeriodicalId":9562,"journal":{"name":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","volume":" ","pages":"274-281"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-025-04018-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In research on organisational health literacy (OHL), there is a lack of standardised assessment tools for measuring and comparing the OHL of different organisations. This article therefore examines (1) which criteria for assessing OHL can be derived from research and practice, (2) how these are implemented in organisations and (3) the psychometric properties of a questionnaire developed from them.

Methodology: OHL criteria were identified by means of literature research and workshops. The criteria were agreed upon in a Delphi study and an assessment tool was developed. An online questionnaire was developed and psychometrically tested. Measures such as Cronbach's alpha, item selectivity and difficulty, and floor/ceiling effects were used for the analysis.

Results: Over 500 criteria were identified and an assessment tool of 77 criteria (5 main categories and 17 sub-categories) was developed. The subject of "Barrier-free access and navigation" was best implemented in healthcare organisations. The psychometric properties showed a good to excellent internal consistency of the questionnaire structure. Only one main category showed significant floor effects; there were no ceiling effects. At the item level, ceiling effects were found for 13 items, and 39 items showed a satisfactory discriminatory power.

Discussion: OHL is a multidimensional construct that is well represented by the assessment tool. Further validation with larger samples is necessary for the use of the tool as a questionnaire for measuring OHL and for comparison between institutions. A reduction in the number of criteria can improve the consistency of the content of the main and sub-categories.

[组织卫生素养评估工具的开发和评估]。
背景:在组织健康素养(OHL)的研究中,缺乏标准化的评估工具来衡量和比较不同组织的OHL。因此,本文将探讨(1)哪些评估OHL的标准可以从研究和实践中得出,(2)这些标准如何在组织中实施,以及(3)从中开发的问卷的心理测量特性。方法:通过文献研究和研讨会确定OHL标准。在德尔菲研究中商定了这些标准,并开发了一种评估工具。开发了一份在线问卷,并进行了心理测量学测试。测量如Cronbach’s alpha,项目选择性和难度,以及地板/天花板效应被用于分析。结果:确定了500多个标准,并制定了77个标准(5个主要类别和17个次要类别)的评估工具。“无障碍通行和导航”这一主题在卫生保健组织中得到了最好的落实。心理测量特征显示问卷结构具有良好至优异的内部一致性。只有一个主要类别显示出显著的地板效应;没有天花板效应。在项目层面上,13个项目存在天花板效应,39个项目表现出满意的区分能力。讨论:OHL是由评估工具很好地表示的多维结构。使用该工具作为测量OHL的问卷和在机构之间进行比较,需要对更大样本进行进一步验证。减少标准的数量可以提高主要类别和子类别内容的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Monatszeitschrift Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - umfasst alle Fragestellungen und Bereiche, mit denen sich das öffentliche Gesundheitswesen und die staatliche Gesundheitspolitik auseinandersetzen. Ziel ist es, zum einen über wesentliche Entwicklungen in der biologisch-medizinischen Grundlagenforschung auf dem Laufenden zu halten und zum anderen über konkrete Maßnahmen zum Gesundheitsschutz, über Konzepte der Prävention, Risikoabwehr und Gesundheitsförderung zu informieren. Wichtige Themengebiete sind die Epidemiologie übertragbarer und nicht übertragbarer Krankheiten, der umweltbezogene Gesundheitsschutz sowie gesundheitsökonomische, medizinethische und -rechtliche Fragestellungen.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信