Substituting confidence for competence in health literacy: a review of studies, citations, and trial registrations.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Inga Jagemann, Christian Thiele, Ruth von Brachel, Gerrit Hirschfeld
{"title":"Substituting confidence for competence in health literacy: a review of studies, citations, and trial registrations.","authors":"Inga Jagemann, Christian Thiele, Ruth von Brachel, Gerrit Hirschfeld","doi":"10.1093/heapro/daae203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient health literacy is crucial for effective patient-physician communication, and interventions targeting health literacy can use measures based on either actual performance (competence) or self-ratings (confidence). This paper analyzed the development of these measures through three studies. Study 1 reviewed articles describing the development of novel measures; Study 2 examined the citations of these studies, and Study 3 evaluated data from clinical trials registries. The literature search was conducted from 14 April 2023 to 27 April 2023. PubMed was used as the main database in which studies on health literacy measures were searched for the systematic review (Study 1). We then used Google Scholar and the OpenCitations database to describe citation patterns of the included health literacy measures (Study 2). Finally, we evaluated confidence- or competence-based health literacy measures by extracting and analyzing trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov (Study 3). Our review included 55 health literacy measures, among which 23 (42%) were competence-based, 28 (51%) confidence-based, and 4 (7%) assessed both. Recent trends show a shift toward developing more confidence-based measures and a decline in creating new competence-based measures. Confidence-based measures were increasingly cited, whereas citations for competence-based measures have plateaued. Lastly, our findings showed a steady increase in the use of confidence-based measures in recent clinical trials and a decrease in the use of competence-based measures when controlling for sample size. This shift may be problematic because confidence-based measures do not improve our limited knowledge about patients' actual ability to meet demands of shared decision-making, especially regarding new technologies like artificial intelligence in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":54256,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion International","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patient health literacy is crucial for effective patient-physician communication, and interventions targeting health literacy can use measures based on either actual performance (competence) or self-ratings (confidence). This paper analyzed the development of these measures through three studies. Study 1 reviewed articles describing the development of novel measures; Study 2 examined the citations of these studies, and Study 3 evaluated data from clinical trials registries. The literature search was conducted from 14 April 2023 to 27 April 2023. PubMed was used as the main database in which studies on health literacy measures were searched for the systematic review (Study 1). We then used Google Scholar and the OpenCitations database to describe citation patterns of the included health literacy measures (Study 2). Finally, we evaluated confidence- or competence-based health literacy measures by extracting and analyzing trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov (Study 3). Our review included 55 health literacy measures, among which 23 (42%) were competence-based, 28 (51%) confidence-based, and 4 (7%) assessed both. Recent trends show a shift toward developing more confidence-based measures and a decline in creating new competence-based measures. Confidence-based measures were increasingly cited, whereas citations for competence-based measures have plateaued. Lastly, our findings showed a steady increase in the use of confidence-based measures in recent clinical trials and a decrease in the use of competence-based measures when controlling for sample size. This shift may be problematic because confidence-based measures do not improve our limited knowledge about patients' actual ability to meet demands of shared decision-making, especially regarding new technologies like artificial intelligence in healthcare.

以信心取代健康素养:对研究、引用和试验注册的回顾。
患者健康素养对于有效的医患沟通至关重要,针对健康素养的干预措施可以使用基于实际表现(能力)或自我评价(信心)的措施。本文通过三项研究分析了这些措施的发展。研究1回顾了描述新措施发展的文章;研究2检查了这些研究的引用,研究3评估了临床试验注册的数据。文献检索于2023年4月14日至2023年4月27日进行。我们使用PubMed作为主要数据库,在其中检索有关健康素养措施的研究(研究1)。然后,我们使用b谷歌Scholar和openencitations数据库来描述所纳入健康素养措施的引用模式(研究2)。最后,我们通过提取和分析ClinicalTrials.gov上的试验数据来评估基于信心或能力的健康素养措施(研究3)。我们的综述包括55项健康素养措施。其中23个(42%)是基于能力的,28个(51%)是基于信心的,4个(7%)是同时评估的。最近的趋势表明,人们倾向于制定更多以信心为基础的措施,而制定新的以能力为基础的措施的情况有所减少。以信心为基础的措施被越来越多地引用,而以能力为基础的措施被引用的次数却趋于稳定。最后,我们的研究结果表明,在最近的临床试验中,基于信心的测量方法的使用稳步增加,而在控制样本量时,基于能力的测量方法的使用减少。这种转变可能是有问题的,因为基于信心的措施并不能改善我们对患者满足共同决策需求的实际能力的有限了解,特别是在医疗保健领域的人工智能等新技术方面。
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
Health Promotion International
Health Promotion International Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: Health Promotion International contains refereed original articles, reviews, and debate articles on major themes and innovations in the health promotion field. In line with the remits of the series of global conferences on health promotion the journal expressly invites contributions from sectors beyond health. These may include education, employment, government, the media, industry, environmental agencies, and community networks. As the thought journal of the international health promotion movement we seek in particular theoretical, methodological and activist advances to the field. Thus, the journal provides a unique focal point for articles of high quality that describe not only theories and concepts, research projects and policy formulation, but also planned and spontaneous activities, organizational change, as well as social and environmental development.
×
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