The Turkish Validity and Reliability of the Coronavirus-Related Health Literacy Scale on Health Science Students

Abstract

Objective: Health literacy is one’s ability to access, comprehend, appraise, and apply health-related information. Health literacy has become an important topic since the COVID-19 pandemic. This methodological study aimed to adapt the Coronavirus-Related Health Literacy Scale (HLS-COVID-Q22) to Turkish. Methods: The sample consisted of 539 students of the faculty of health sciences of a university in Turkey. The study was conducted between December 2020 and May 2021. The content validity ratio was calculated for content validity. The construct and concurrent validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and ceiling and floor effects were also determined. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed for construct validity. Results: The fit indices indicated an adequate fit (2/df: 4.97<5, Comparative Fit Index: 0.996). The composite reliability (>0.70) and Cronbach’s alpha values (>0.90) were above acceptable limits. Most students had “adequate health literacy” (71.8%). A quarter of the students had “problematic health literacy” (24.5%). The remaining students had “inadequate health literacy” (3.7%). Students with lower levels of health literacy were more likely to have confusion about coronavirus-related information (p<0.001). Conclusions: The results of the study show that the Health Literacy Scale Related to COVID-19 - Turkish Version (HLS-COVID-TR), consisting of 22 items, has sufficient reliability, internal and external construct validity. It has been determined that it is a valid and reliable scale for measuring health science students’ COVID-19 related health literacy levels. Nearly three quarters of the students have sufficient health literacy level.

Keywords

• COVID-19 Pandemic
• Health Literacy
• Validity
• Reliability
• University Student

Thanks

We would like to thank all participants.

Sağlık Bilimleri Öğrencilerinde COVID-19 ile İlişkili Sağlık Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Türkçe Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Sağlık okuryazarlığı bireylerin sağlık bilgilerine erişme, anlama, değerlendirme ve uygulama yeteneğidir. Özellikle COVID-19 pandemisinde sağlık okuryazarlığı giderek önem kazanmaya başlamıştır. Bu metodolojik çalışmanın amacı sağlık alanında üniversite öğrencilerinde "COVID-19 ile İlişkili Sağlık Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği"nin (SOY-COVID-Q22) Türkçe’ye uyarlamasının gerçekleştirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu metodolojik çalışma Türkiye’de bir üniversitede eğitim gören 539 Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi öğrencisi ile yapılmıştır. Çalışma Aralık 2020 – Mayıs 2021 tarihleri arasında yürütülmüştür. Kapsam geçerliliğini değerlendirmek için kapsam geçerlilik oranı hesaplanmıştır. Yapı ve eşzamanlı geçerlilik, iç tutarlılık güvenilirliği, test-tekrar test güvenilirliği ve tavan ve taban etkileri de belirlenmiştir. Yapı geçerliliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Bulgular: Uyum indeksleri yeterli uyumu göstermiştir (2/df: 4.97<5, Karşılaştırmalı uyum indeksi: 0.996). Bileşik güvenilirlik (>0.70) ve Cronbach alfa değerleri (>0.90) kabul edilebilir sınırların üzerinde bulunmuştur. Öğrencilerin çoğunun “yeterli sağlık okuryazarlığı”na (%71,8), katılımcıların dörtte birinin “sorunlu sağlık okuryazarlığı”na (%24,5) sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Diğer öğrenciler “yetersiz sağlık okuryazarlığı”na (%3,7) sahiptir. Sağlık okuryazarlığı düzeyi düşük olan öğrencilerin COVID-19 enfeksiyonu ile ilgili bilgiler konusunda kafa karışıklığı yaşama olasılığı daha yüksektir (p<0.001). Sonuç: Çalışma sonuçları, 22 maddeden oluşan COVID-19 ile İlişkili Sağlık Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği - Türkçe Versiyonunun (SOY-COVID-TR) yeterli güvenilirliğe, iç ve dış yapı geçerliliğine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Sağlık bilimleri öğrencilerinin COVID-19 ile ilgili sağlık okuryazarlık düzeylerini ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğrencilerin yaklaşık dörtte üçünün yeterli sağlık okuryazarlık düzeyine sahiptir.

Keywords

• COVID-19 pandemisi
• Sağlık okuryazarlığı
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik
• Üniversite öğrencileri

References

1. 1. World Health Organization. Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) [Internet]. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2020. [cited 19 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
2. 2. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Vaccines [Internet]. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2022. [cited 19 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-vaccines
3. 3. Tangcharoensathien V, Calleja N, Nguyen T, Purnat T, D'Agostino M, Garcia-Saiso S, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e19659.
4. 4. Paakkari L, Okan O. COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e249–50.
5. 5. World Health Organization. Health promotion glossary [Internet]. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1998. [cited 1 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HPR-HEP-98.1
6. 6. Van Der Vaart R, Drossaert C. Development of the Digital Health Literacy Instrument: Measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Skills. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e27.
7. 7. Nguyen HC, Nguyen MH, Do BN, Tran CQ, Nguyen TTP, Pham KM, et al. People with suspected COVID-19 symptoms were more likely depressed and had lower health-related quality of life: The Potential benefit of health literacy. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4): 965.
8. 8. Nguyen HT, Do BN, Pham KM, Kim GB, Dam HTB, Nguyen TT, et al. Fear of COVID-19 scale-associations of its scores with health literacy and health-related behaviors among medical students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):4164.

9. 9. Wang Y, Jing X, Han W, Jing Y, Xu L. Positive and negative affect of university and college students during COVID-19 outbreak: a network-based survey. Int J Public Health. 2020;65(8):1437–43.
10. 10. Pelikan JM. Health-literate healthcare organisations. In: Okan O, Bauer U, Levin-zamir D, Pinheiro P, editors. International handbook of health literacy: Research, practice and policy across the lifespan. Bristol (UK): Policy Press; 2019. pp. 539–53.
11. 11. Chesser A, Drassen Ham A, Keene Woods N. Assessment of COVID-19 knowledge among university students: implications for future risk communication strategies. Health Educ Behav. 2020;47(4):540–3.
12. 12. Kaper MS, Reijneveld SA, van Es FD, de Zeeuw J, Almansa J, Koot JAR, et al. Effectiveness of a comprehensive health literacy consultation skills training for undergraduate medical students: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;17(1):81.
13. 13. Choi S, Bang KS, Shin DA. eHealth Literacy, awareness of pandemic infectious diseases, and healthy lifestyle in middle school students. Children (Basel). 2021;8 (8):699.
14. 14. Dadaczynski K, Okan O, Messer M, Rathmann K. University students’ sense of coherence, future worries and mental health: findings from the German COVID-HL-survey. Health Promot Int. 2021;37(1):daab070.
15. 15. Pisl V, Volavka J, Chvojkova E, Cechova K, Kavalirova G, Vevera J. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19: The role of health locus of control and conspiracy theories. Front Psychol. 2021;12:717960.
16. 16. Peksoy Kaya S, Kaplan S. Evaluating the relationship between nursing students’ awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic and health behaviors with health literacy. J Educ Res Nurs. 2020;17(4):304–11.
17. 17. Li Y, Wang Y, Jiang J, Valdimarsdóttir UA, Fall K, Fang F, et al. Psychological distress among health professional students during the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychol Med. 2021;51(11):1952–4.
18. 18. Jia Y, Ma S, Bai L, Xiao Q, Wu Y, Gao Y, et al. Health literacy and disparities in knowledge, attitude and practice regarding COVID-19 among college students during the covıd-19 outbreak in china: A cross-sectional study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:4477-88.
19. 19. Ortega-Paredes D, Larrea-Álvarez CM, Jijón SI, Loaiza K, Šefcová MA, Molina-Cuasapaz G, et al. A cross-sectional study to assess knowledge of COVID-19 among undergraduate students in North-Central Ecuador. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8706.
20. 20. Parmitasari DLN. Studi deskriptif literasi mahasiswa terkait Covid-19. Praxis. 2021;3:113–9.
21. 21. Duong TV, Aringazina A, Baisunova G, Nurjanah, Pham TV, Pham KM, et al. Measuring health literacy in Asia: Validation of the HLS-EU-Q47 survey tool in six Asian countries. J Epidemiol. 2017;27(2):80–6.
22. 22. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston (USA): Allyn and Bacon; 2001.
23. 23. Bujang MA, Baharum N. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Archives of Orofacial Sciences The Journal of the School of Dental Sciences, USM Arch Orofac Sci. 2017;12:1–11, Table 2c.
24. 24. Papagiannis D, Malli F, Raptis DG, Papathanasiou IV, Fradelos EC, Daniil Z, et al. Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) of health care professionals in greece before the outbreak period. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14): 4925.
25. 25. Okan O, Bollweg TM, Berens EM, Hurrelmann K, Bauer U, Schaeffer D. Coronavirus-Related Health Literacy: A cross-sectional study in adults during the COVID-19 infodemic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5503.
26. 26. Okyay P, Abacıgil F. Turkish health literacy scales reliability and validity study. Turkish Health Literacy Scale (THLS-32). Ankara: Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayın No. 1025, Anıl Reklam Matbaa Ltd. Şti.; 2016.
27. 27. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Counsel Dev. 2014;47(1):79–86.
28. 28. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res. 2010;99(6):323–38.
29. 29. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. SEM: confirmatory factor analysis. In: Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, editors. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006. pp. 770–842.
30. 30. George D, Paul M. SPSS for Windows step by step a simple guide and reference Fourth Edition (11.0 update). 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
31. 31. Mukaka MM. A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69–71.
32. 32. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting ıntraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.
33. 33. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna [Internet]. Austria; 2021. [cited 15 June 2020]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
34. 34. Revelle W. psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois [Internet]. USA; 2020. [cited 15 June 2020]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych Version = 2.0.12.
35. 35. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36.
36. 36. Epskamp S. semPlot Path Diagrams and Visual Analysis of Various SEM Packages’ Output. R Package Version 1.1.2 [Internet]. 2019. [cited 15 June 2020]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=semPlot
37. 37. Wickham H. Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York (USA): Springer-Verlag; 2009.
38. 38. Wickham H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw. 2007;21(12):1–20.
39. 39. Teun van den B. ggh4x: Hacks for ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.2.1 [Internet]. 2021. [cited 15 June 2020]. Available from: https://github.com/teunbrand/ggh4x/issues
40. 40. Signorell A, Aho K, Alfons A, Anderegg N, Aragon T, Arachchige C, et al. DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics. R package version 0.99.44. [Internet]. 2021. [cited 15 June 2020]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DescTools/citation.html
41. 41. Kassambara A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.4.0 [Internet]. 2020. [cited 15 June 2020]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggpubr/index.html
42. 42. Xie L, Yang H, Zheng X, Wu Y, Lin X, Shen Z. Medical resources and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality rate: Evidence and Implications from Hubei Province in China. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1):e0244867.
43. 43. Chung RY-N, Dong D, Li MM. Socioeconomic gradient in health and the covid-19 outbreak. BMJ. 2020;369:m1329.
44. 44. Li S, Cui G, Kaminga AC, Cheng S, Xu H. Associations between health literacy, ehealth literacy, and COVID-19–Related health behaviors among chinese college students: Cross-sectional online study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e25600.
45. 45. Kara B. The Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on university students: A review of the current evidence. Sağlık ve Toplum. 2021;31:32–7.