Competencies of health personnel for the practice of health literacy in Brazil: A Delphi consensus survey

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 29;17(7):e0271361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271361. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify a set of competencies of health personnel for the practice of health literacy in Brazil.

Methods: Scoping review and online interviews with healthcare practitioners, followed by three rounds of the modified e-Delphi method with health literacy specialists from November/2020 to March/2021. During the rounds, the items were revised, new items added for review, and their importance was rated on a five-point Likert scale in an online form. Those items that achieved a mean Likert rating of 4+ (rated important to very important) and ≥ 90.0% agreement among the experts were maintained in each round.

Results: The initial competencies list contained 30 items from the literature scoping review and online interview with 46 Brazilian healthcare practitioners. 25 experts (health personnel with publications on health literacy) were invited to participate in the e-Delphi rounds. Of the total of 56 items evaluated, 28 reached consensus among the experts. The Brazilian competencies list differed from other consensuses by the emphasis on professional commitment to the literacy in health, autonomy and social context of the patient.

Conclusion: For the Brazilian context, 28 competencies are relevant to the practice of health literacy in health care. This study is an initial step to develop the HL competences of Brazilian health professionals and an update of the skills evidenced in previous international studies.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Brazil
  • Clinical Competence
  • Consensus
  • Delphi Technique
  • Health Literacy*
  • Health Personnel
  • Humans

Associated data

  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.19919528

Grants and funding

This study was partially supported by the Fundação De Apoio à Pesquisa Do Distrito Federal (FAPDF). No additional external funding was received for this study. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.