Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Jul;25(7):675-81.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1304-2. Epub 2010 Mar 12.

Variation in estimates of limited health literacy by assessment instruments and non-response bias

Joan M Griffin  1 , Melissa R Partin, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Joseph P Grill, Somnath Saha, Annamay Snyder, Sean Nugent, Alisha Baines Simon, Ian Gralnek, Dawn Provenzale, Michelle van Ryn
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Variation in estimates of limited health literacy by assessment instruments and non-response bias

Joan M Griffin et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: This paper compares estimates of poor health literacy using two widely used assessment tools and assesses the effect of non-response on these estimates.

Study design and setting: A total of 4,868 veterans receiving care at four VA medical facilities between 2004 and 2005 were stratified by age and facility and randomly selected for recruitment. Interviewers collected demographic information and conducted assessments of health literacy (both REALM and S-TOFHLA) from 1,796 participants. Prevalence estimates for each assessment were computed. Non-respondents received a brief proxy questionnaire with demographic and self-report literacy questions to assess non-response bias. Available administrative data for non-participants were also used to assess non-response bias.

Results: Among the 1,796 patients assessed using the S-TOFHLA, 8% had inadequate and 7% had marginal skills. For the REALM, 4% were categorized with 6th grade skills and 17% with 7-8th grade skills. Adjusting for non-response bias increased the S-TOFHLA prevalence estimates for inadequate and marginal skills to 9.3% and 11.8%, respectively, and the REALM estimates for < or = 6th and 7-8th grade skills to 5.4% and 33.8%, respectively.

Conclusions: Estimates of poor health literacy varied by the assessment used, especially after adjusting for non-response bias. Researchers and clinicians should consider the possible limitations of each assessment when considering the most suitable tool for their purposes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study participant flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ratzan SC. Health literacy: Communication for the public good. Health promot Int. 2001;16:207–14. doi: 10.1093/heapro/16.2.207. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Scott T, Parker RM, Green D, et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1278–83. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.8.1278. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. A J Public Health. 1997;87:1027–30. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.87.6.1027. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J, Thompson JA, Gazmararian JA, Huang J. Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Am J Public Health. 2007;167(14):1503–9. - PubMed
    1. Nielsen-Bohlman LT, Panzer AM, Kindig DA. Health Literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Acadamies Press; 2004. - PubMed

Publication types