2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Maternal Health Literacy Inventory in Pregnancy scale: a methodological study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          This study aimed to translate the Maternal Health Literacy Inventory in Pregnancy (MHELIP) scale into Turkish and evaluate its validity and reliability for use in the Turkish population.

          Methods

          The participants in this methodological study included 250 pregnant women who presented to the antenatal clinic of the Florence Nightingale Hospital in Istanbul, Turkiye. Content validity was assessed using expert approval. Confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling were used to assess the validity. Criterion validity was evaluated using the short-form health literacy survey tool, the Short-Form Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-SF12). To assess reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, item analysis, and the test-retest method were used.

          Results

          The mean age of the participants was 32.02±4.15 years. The content validity index of the scale was .99. The scale had a four-factor structure that fit well with 48 items. “Maternal health knowledge,” “maternal health information search,” “maternal health information assessment,” and “maternal health decision making and behavior” subscales had Cronbach’s alpha values of .91, .76, .85, and .90, respectively. The MHELIP and HLS-SF12 scores were significantly correlated ( r=.422, p<.001).

          Conclusion

          The MHELIP was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool in pregnant Turkish women.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU)

            Background: Health literacy concerns the capacities of people to meet the complex demands of health in modern society. In spite of the growing attention for the concept among European health policymakers, researchers and practitioners, information about the status of health literacy in Europe remains scarce. This article presents selected findings from the first European comparative survey on health literacy in populations. Methods: The European health literacy survey (HLS-EU) was conducted in eight countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain (n = 1000 per country, n = 8000 total sample). Data collection was based on Eurobarometer standards and the implementation of the HLS-EU-Q (questionnaire) in computer-assisted or paper-assisted personal interviews. Results: The HLS-EU-Q constructed four levels of health literacy: insufficient, problematic, sufficient and excellent. At least 1 in 10 (12%) respondents showed insufficient health literacy and almost 1 in 2 (47%) had limited (insufficient or problematic) health literacy. However, the distribution of levels differed substantially across countries (29–62%). Subgroups within the population, defined by financial deprivation, low social status, low education or old age, had higher proportions of people with limited health literacy, suggesting the presence of a social gradient which was also confirmed by raw bivariate correlations and a multivariate linear regression model. Discussion: Limited health literacy represents an important challenge for health policies and practices across Europe, but to a different degree for different countries. The social gradient in health literacy must be taken into account when developing public health strategies to improve health equity in Europe.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Scale development:Theory and applications

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Womens Health Nurs
                Womens Health Nurs
                WHN
                Women's Health Nursing
                Korean Society of Women Health Nursing
                3022-7666
                3022-8247
                31 December 2024
                30 December 2024
                : 30
                : 4
                : 330-339
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye
                [2 ]Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkiye
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Ayse Kilic Ucar Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Yeditepe University, Kayışdağı, İnönü Mahallesi, Kayışdağı Cad., 34755 Ataşehir, Istanbul, Turkiye Tel: +90-02165780000 E-mail: ayse.kilicucar@ 123456yeditepe.edu.tr

                This article is based on the master’s thesis of the first author (Yeşim Altuntas) from Demiroglu Bilim University

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4937-2701
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-6117
                Article
                whn-2024-10-18
                10.4069/whn.2024.10.18
                11700718
                39756477
                a9e594e3-514c-427e-ada6-448e3af52e31
                © 2024 Korean Society of Women Health Nursing

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 29 April 2024
                : 17 October 2024
                : 18 October 2024
                Categories
                Original Article

                health literacy,literacy,pregnancy,pregnant women,validity and reliability

                Comments

                Comment on this article