Health literacy development is central to the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.

The WHO's report Health literacy development for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) delivers practical what-to-do how-to-do guidance for health literacy development to build, at scale, contextually-relevant public health actions to reduce inequity and the burden of NCDs on individuals, health systems and economies. The key premise for health literacy development is that people's health awareness and behaviours are linked to lifelong experiences and social practices, which may be multilayered, hidden and beyond their control. Meaningful community engagement, local ownership and locally driven actions are needed to identify health literacy strengths, challenges and preferences to build locally fit-for-purpose and implementable actions. Health literacy development needs to underpin local and national policy, laws and regulations to create enabling environments that reduce community exposures to NCD risk factors. Deficit approaches and siloed health system and policy responses need to be avoided, focusing instead on integrating community-based solutions through co-design, cognisant of people's daily experiences and social practices.

Systematic development and implementation of interventions to OPtimise Health Literacy and Access (Ophelia).

BACKGROUND: The need for healthcare strengthening to enhance equity is critical, requiring systematic approaches that focus on those experiencing lesser access and outcomes. This project developed and tested the Ophelia (OPtimising HEalth LIteracy and Access) approach for co-design of interventions to improve health literacy and equity of access. Eight principles guided this development: Outcomes focused; Equity driven, Needs diagnosis, Co-design, Driven by local wisdom, Sustainable, Responsive and Systematically applied. We report the application of the Ophelia process where proof-of-concept was defined as successful application of the principles. METHODS: Nine sites were briefed on the aims of the project around health literacy, co-design and quality improvement. The sites were rural/metropolitan, small/large hospitals, community health centres or municipalities. Each site identified their own priorities for improvement; collected health literacy data using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) within the identified priority groups; engaged staff in co-design workshops to generate ideas for improvement; developed program-logic models; and implemented their projects using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Evaluation included assessment of impacts on organisations, practitioners and service users, and whether the principles were applied. RESULTS: Sites undertook co-design workshops involving discussion of service user needs informed by HLQ (n = 813) and interview data. Sites generated between 21 and 78 intervention ideas and then planned their selected interventions through program-logic models. Sites successfully implemented interventions and refined them progressively with PDSA cycles. Interventions generally involved one of four pathways: development of clinician skills and resources for health literacy, engagement of community volunteers to disseminate health promotion messages, direct impact on consumers' health literacy, and redesign of existing services. Evidence of application of the principles was found in all sites. CONCLUSIONS: The Ophelia approach guided identification of health literacy issues at each participating site and the development and implementation of locally appropriate solutions. The eight principles provided a framework that allowed flexible application of the Ophelia approach and generation of a diverse set of interventions. Changes were observed at organisational, staff, and community member levels. The Ophelia approach can be used to generate health service improvements that enhance health outcomes and address inequity of access to healthcare.

Structural properties and psychometric improvements of the Health Literacy Questionnaire in a Slovak population.

OBJECTIVES: Health literacy is an important determinant of health and health equity and therefore requires robust measurement. The aim was to examine the psychometric properties of the Slovak version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) including revised wording of response categories. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of the general Slovak adult population (N = 360, mean age 39) was conducted with the HLQ following its translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometric tests (confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability) and association (linear regression, ANOVA) with sociodemographic variables were undertaken. The performance of alternative version of response options were explored with the Mann-Whittney U test and item response theory. RESULTS: A highly restrictive nine-factor confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit [χ 2WLSMV = 1684 (df = 866), p < 0.0001; CFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.938, RMSEA = 0.051, WRMR = 1.297] and reliability was acceptable (range 0.73-0.84). The revised response categories had a better distribution with lower average scores in three domains, compared with the original, and improved item information curves. CONCLUSIONS: The nine HLQ scales are robust, providing a fine-grained assessment of health literacy. The revised response options improve psychometric properties and are recommended for future studies.

The burden of neck pain: its meaning for persons with neck pain and healthcare providers, explored by concept mapping.

PURPOSE: To empirically define the concept of burden of neck pain. The lack of a clear understanding of this construct from the perspective of persons with neck pain and care providers hampers adequate measurement of this burden. An additional aim was to compare the conceptual model obtained with the frequently used Neck Disability Index (NDI). METHODS: Concept mapping, combining qualitative (nominal group technique and group consensus) and quantitative research methods (cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling), was applied to groups of persons with neck pain (n = 3) and professionals treating persons with neck pain (n = 2). Group members generated statements, which were organized into concept maps. Group members achieved consensus about the number and description of domains and the researchers then generated an overall mind map covering the full breadth of the burden of neck pain. RESULTS: Concept mapping revealed 12 domains of burden of neck pain: impaired mobility neck, neck pain, fatigue/concentration, physical complaints, psychological aspects/consequences, activities of daily living, social participation, financial consequences, difficult to treat/difficult to diagnose, difference of opinion with care providers, incomprehension by social environment, and how person with neck pain deal with complaints. All ten items of the NDI could be linked to the mind map, but the NDI measures only part of the burden of neck pain. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the relevant domains for the burden of neck pain from the viewpoints of persons with neck pain and their care providers. These results can guide the identification of existing measurements instruments for each domain or the development of new ones to measure the burden of neck pain.

Distribution of health literacy strengths and weaknesses across socio-demographic groups: a cross-sectional survey using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ).

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in the measurement of health literacy allow description of a broad range of personal and social dimensions of the concept. Identifying differences in patterns of health literacy between population sub-groups will increase understanding of how health literacy contributes to health inequities and inform intervention development. The aim of this study was to use a multi-dimensional measurement tool to describe the health literacy of adults in urban and rural Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Data were collected from clients (n = 813) of 8 health and community care organisations, using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Demographic and health service data were also collected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Effect sizes (ES) for standardised differences in means were used to describe the magnitude of difference between demographic sub-groups. RESULTS: Mean age of respondents was 72.1 (range 19-99) years. Females comprised 63% of the sample, 48% had not completed secondary education, and 96% reported at least one existing health condition. Small to large ES were seen for mean differences in HLQ scales between most demographic groups. Compared with participants who spoke English at home, those not speaking English at home had much lower scores for most HLQ scales including the scales 'Understanding health information well enough to know what to do' (ES -1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.33 to -0.84]), 'Ability to actively engage with healthcare providers' (ES -1.00 [95% CI -1.24, -0.75]), and 'Navigating the healthcare system' (ES -0.72 [95% CI -0.97, -0.48]). Similar patterns and ES were seen for participants born overseas compared with those born in Australia. Smaller ES were seen for sex, age group, private health insurance status, number of chronic conditions, and living alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study has revealed some large health literacy differences across nine domains of health literacy in adults using health services in Victoria. These findings provide insights into the relationship between health literacy and socioeconomic position in vulnerable groups and, given the focus of the HLQ, provide guidance for the development of equitable interventions.

The OPtimising HEalth LIterAcy (Ophelia) process: study protocol for using health literacy profiling and community engagement to create and implement health reform.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy is a multi-dimensional concept comprising a range of cognitive, affective, social, and personal skills and attributes. This paper describes the research and development protocol for a large communities-based collaborative project in Victoria, Australia that aims to identify and respond to health literacy issues for people with chronic conditions. The project, called Ophelia (OPtimising HEalth LIterAcy) Victoria, is a partnership between two universities, eight service organisations and the Victorian Government. Based on the identified issues, it will develop and pilot health literacy interventions across eight disparate health services to inform the creation of a health literacy response framework to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities. METHODS/DESIGN: The protocol draws on many inputs including the experience of the partners in previous co-creation and roll-out of large-scale health-promotion initiatives. Three key conceptual models/discourses inform the protocol: intervention mapping; quality improvement collaboratives, and realist synthesis. The protocol is outcomes-oriented and focuses on two key questions: 'What are the health literacy strengths and weaknesses of clients of participating sites?', and 'How do sites interpret and respond to these in order to achieve positive health and equity outcomes for their clients?'. The process has six steps in three main phases. The first phase is a needs assessment that uses the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), a multi-dimensional measure of health literacy, to identify common health literacy needs among clients. The second phase involves front-line staff and management within each service organisation in co-creating intervention plans to strategically respond to the identified local needs. The third phase will trial the interventions within each site to determine if the site can improve identified limitations to service access and/or health outcomes. DISCUSSION: There have been few attempts to assist agencies to identify, and respond, in a planned way, to the varied health literacy needs of their clients. This project will assess the potential for targeted, locally-developed health literacy interventions to improve access, equity and outcomes.

The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ).

BACKGROUND: Health literacy has become an increasingly important concept in public health. We sought to develop a comprehensive measure of health literacy capable of diagnosing health literacy needs across individuals and organisations by utilizing perspectives from the general population, patients, practitioners and policymakers. METHODS: Using a validity-driven approach we undertook grounded consultations (workshops and interviews) to identify broad conceptually distinct domains. Questionnaire items were developed directly from the consultation data following a strict process aiming to capture the full range of experiences of people currently engaged in healthcare through to people in the general population. Psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory. Cognitive interviews were used to ensure questions were understood as intended. Items were initially tested in a calibration sample from community health, home care and hospital settings (N=634) and then in a replication sample (N=405) comprising recent emergency department attendees. RESULTS: Initially 91 items were generated across 6 scales with agree/disagree response options and 5 scales with difficulty in undertaking tasks response options. Cognitive testing revealed that most items were well understood and only some minor re-wording was required. Psychometric testing of the calibration sample identified 34 poorly performing or conceptually redundant items and they were removed resulting in 10 scales. These were then tested in a replication sample and refined to yield 9 final scales comprising 44 items. A 9-factor CFA model was fitted to these items with no cross-loadings or correlated residuals allowed. Given the very restricted nature of the model, the fit was quite satisfactory: χ²WLSMV(866 d.f.) = 2927, p<0.000, CFI = 0.936, TLI = 0.930, RMSEA = 0.076, and WRMR = 1.698. Final scales included: Feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers; Having sufficient information to manage my health; Actively managing my health; Social support for health; Appraisal of health information; Ability to actively engage with healthcare providers; Navigating the healthcare system; Ability to find good health information; and Understand health information well enough to know what to do. CONCLUSIONS: The HLQ covers 9 conceptually distinct areas of health literacy to assess the needs and challenges of a wide range of people and organisations. Given the validity-driven approach, the HLQ is likely to be useful in surveys, intervention evaluation, and studies of the needs and capabilities of individuals.