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.
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.