Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

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

Speros, Carolyn·2005·Journal of Advanced Nursing

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03448.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 322

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.