最新生命体征与简短健康素养筛查评分在大型城市西班牙裔人群中的比较。
Comparison of Newest Vital Sign and Brief Health Literacy Screen scores in a large, urban Hispanic cohort.
机构信息
School of Nursing, Columbia University, 560 West 168th Street, MC6, New York, NY 10032, USA.
School of Nursing, Columbia University, 560 West 168th Street, MC6, New York, NY 10032, USA; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 W. 168th Street, PH20 3720, New York, NY 10032, USA.
出版信息
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Apr;109:107628. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107628. Epub 2023 Jan 10.
OBJECTIVE
Prior studies comparing subjective and objective health literacy measures have yielded inconsistent results. Our aim was to examine the concordance between Newest Vital Sign (NVS) and Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS) scores in a large cohort of English- and Spanish-speaking urban Hispanic adults.
METHODS
Item means, standard deviations, corrected-item total correlations, Cronbach's alpha, and Spearman correlations and area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve analysis were used to compare NVS and BHLS items and total scores.
RESULTS
N = 2988 (n = 1259 English; n = 1729 Spanish). Scores on both measures demonstrated good internal consistency (NVS: α = .843 English, .846 Spanish; BHLS: α = .797 English, .846 Spanish) but NVS items had high difficulty; more than half of respondents scored 0. Measures were only weakly correlated (r = .21, p < .001, English; r = .19, p < .001, Spanish). The AUROC curves were .606 (English) and .605 (Spanish) for discriminating the lowest NVS scoring category.
CONCLUSION
Subjective health literacy scores were poor predictors of objective scores. Objective scores demonstrated floor effects, precluding discrimination at low levels of the trait continuum.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Subjective health literacy scores may fail to identify individuals with limited health literacy.
目的
先前比较主观和客观健康素养测量的研究结果不一致。我们的目的是在一大群讲英语和西班牙语的城市西班牙裔成年人中，检验 Newest Vital Sign（NVS）和 Brief Health Literacy Screen（BHLS）评分之间的一致性。
方法
使用项目均值、标准差、校正项目总分相关性、克朗巴赫 α 系数、Spearman 相关系数和受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线下面积（AUROC）分析比较 NVS 和 BHLS 项目和总分。
结果
N=2988（n=1259 英语；n=1729 西班牙语）。两种测量方法的得分均显示出良好的内部一致性（NVS：α=英语.843，西班牙语.846；BHLS：α=英语.797，西班牙语.846），但 NVS 项目难度较高；超过一半的受访者得分为 0。两种测量方法相关性较弱（r=英语.21，p<0.001；西班牙语.19，p<0.001）。区分 NVS 最低评分类别的 AUROC 曲线为英语.606 和西班牙语.605。
结论
主观健康素养得分是客观得分的不良预测指标。客观得分显示出地板效应，在特质连续体的低水平上无法进行区分。
实践意义
主观健康素养得分可能无法识别出健康素养有限的个体。
Zotero 插件