A systematic scoping review and content analysis of organizational health literacy responsiveness assessment tools

Bibliographic Data

ID22945857
AuthorsTeresa Cheng-Chieh Chu (0000-0002-8682-5825, National Taiwan Normal University, corresponding author), Rebecca K Kelly (0000-0001-7409-8520, University of Tasmania, corresponding author), Yih-Jin Hu (National Taiwan Normal University), Yih‐Jin Hu (0000-0002-7190-8070, National Taiwan Normal University, corresponding author), Shandell Elmer (0000-0001-9757-9976, University of Tasmania), Rosie Nash (0000-0003-3695-0887, University of Tasmania)
Year2024
Volume39
Issue3
Publication date2024-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Promotion International (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0957-4824 • E-ISSN: 1460-2245
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/heapro/daae064
PMID38920272
OpenAlexW4400048226
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited41

The characteristics of health literate organizations have been variously described in recognition that it is important for organizations to respond to the diversity of people’s health literacy strengths and challenges. A systematic scoping review was conducted to identify, assess and classify international self-assessment tools aimed at measuring the capability of organizations to embody health literate characteristics. Following the JBI Scoping Manual, a search was conducted in six databases and identified 2693 articles. After screening, 16 studies published between 2007 and 2023 across eight countries were eligible for inclusion. Results were summarized and a finite list of items from existing tools was generated. Content analysis was performed to classify these items. Whilst most assessment tools in the included studies were healthcare-focused, other settings included schools and government departments. The 16 assessment tools included a total of 661 items, and 647 items were retained that met the definition of health literacy responsiveness. Items were classified into six domains (communication; navigation of resources; culture; policies and practice; involvement or engagement and workforce development), with high agreement between two researchers (91.5%). The 647 items were reviewed to exclude items that were too contextually specific, focused solely on service users, were too broad or had suitable alternatives; 210 items were finally retained. This research is two-fold: provides a synthesis of existing organizational health literacy responsiveness assessment tools across settings; and provides a list of items, which will be essential to developing context specific assessment tools through Delphi methods in the future.

Content analysis · Context (archaeology) · Delphi method · Government (linguistics) · Health care · Health literacy · Inclusion (mineral) · Knowledge management · Literacy · Medical education · MEDLINE · Pedagogy · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Systematic review · Workforce · Workforce development · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology · Health Literacy and Information Accessibility · Medicine · Psychology · School Health and Nursing Education · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI