Cited by 2,944Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareCultural Competency in Health Care

The evolving concept of health literacy

Nutbeam, Don·2008·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

The relationship between poor literacy skills and health status is now well recognized and better understood. Interest in this relationship has led to the emergence of the concept of health literacy. The concept has emerged from two different roots - in clinical care and in public health. This paper describes the two distinctive concepts that reflect health literacy, respectively, as a clinical "risk", or a personal "asset". In the former case a strong science is developing to support screening for poor literacy skills in clinical care and this is leading to a range of changes to clinical practice and organization. The conceptualization of health literacy as an asset has its roots in educational research into literacy, concepts of adult learning, and health promotion. The science to support this conceptualization is less well developed and is focused on the development of skills and capacities intended to enable people to exert greater control over their health and the factors that shape health. The paper concludes that both conceptualizations are important and are helping to stimulate a more sophisticated understanding of the process of health communication in both clinical and community settings, as well as highlighting factors impacting on its effectiveness. These include more personal forms of communication and community based educational outreach. It recommends improved interaction between researchers working within the two health literacy perspectives, and further research on the measurement of health literacy. The paper also emphasizes the importance of more general strategies to promote literacy, numeracy and language skills in populations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.050

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nutbeam, D.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Nutbeam, Don
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
67
Issue
12
Pages
2072-2078
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129716887
Cited by
2,944
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 255 · 2025: 237 · 2024: 224 · 2023: 205 · 2022: 275 · 2021: 228 · 2020: 237 · 2019: 219 · 2018: 196 · 2017: 158 · 2016: 148 · 2015: 138 · 2014: 100 · 2013: 112 · 2012: 92
FWCI
76.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
Keywords
health literacy, literacy skills, health status, clinical care, health promotion, adult learning, health communication, health communication effectiveness, literacy screening, health literacy assessment, numeracy, language skills
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Health Education, Health Status, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Patient Education as Topic, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review