The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Health literacy: concept analysis
Abstract
Aim. This paper reports an analysis of the concept of health literacy in order to clarify its meaning, reduce ambiguities associated with references to it, and promote consistency in using the concept in nursing dialogue and research. Background. Health literacy is a relatively new concept in health promotion research. Only within the last decade have researchers identified the problems associated with health literacy, the role it plays in an individual's ability to comprehend health and self‐care information, and its relationship to health outcomes. Clarifying the concept is essential so that nurses develop an awareness of the phenomenon and its relationship to the outcomes of their communication and health education efforts. Method. The method used for this concept analysis was that of Walker and Avant (1995). Findings. Health literacy empowers people to act appropriately in new and changing health‐related circumstances through the use of advanced cognitive and social skills. The defining attributes of health literacy are reading and numeracy skills, comprehension, the capacity to use information in health care decision‐making, and successful functioning as a healthcare consumer. Antecedents of health literacy are literacy and a health‐related experience. Consequences of health literacy include improved self‐reported health status, lower health care costs, increased health knowledge, shorter hospitalizations, and less frequent use of health care services. Empirical referents of the concept are the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults and the health literacy component of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Conclusions. An analysis of the concept of health literacy enhances nurses’ ability to assess more accurately their clients’ levels of health literacy, thus identifying those at risk for misunderstanding health care instructions, shame associated with inadequate reading skills, and inability to adhere to health care recommendations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, & Institute of Medicine (2004) · doi:10.17226/10883 · Cited by 3,444
Cited by
Statistical Numeracy for Health: A Cross-cultural Comparison With Probabilistic National Samples
Galesic, M. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481 · Cited by 221
Eccleston, C., Doherty, K., Bindoff, A., Robinson, A., Vickers, J., & McInerney, F. (2019) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-019-0042-4 · Cited by 68
The making of expert patients: The role of online health communities in arthritis self-management
Willis, E. (2014) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105313496446 · Cited by 48
A process-knowledge approach to supporting self-care among older adults
(2022) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2022.07.003 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Speros, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-05-31
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 633-640
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2007650982
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Health literacy: concept analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03448.x
- The paper
- Speros, C. (2005). Health literacy: concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03448.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.