Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 592

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Functional health literacy and health-promoting behaviour in a national sample of British adults

Open access
Wagner, Christian von, Knight, Katherine, Steptoe, Andrew, Wardle, Jane·2007·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
DOI 10.1136/jech.2006.053967
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives: To measure the prevalence of limited functional health literacy in the UK, and examine associations with health behaviours and self-rated health. Design: Psychometric testing using a British version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) in a population sample of adults. Setting: UK-wide interview survey (excluding Northern Ireland and the Scottish Isles). Participants: 759 adults (439 women, 320 men) aged 18–90 years (mean age _ 47.6 years) selected using random location sampling. Main outcome measures: Functional health literacy, self-rated health, fruit and vegetable consumption, physical exercise and smoking. Results: We found that 11.4% of participants had either marginal or inadequate health literacy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that the risk of having limitations in health literacy increased with age (adjusted odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.06), being male (odds ratio _ 2.04; 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 3.55), low educational attainment (odds ratio _ 7.46; 95% confidence interval 3.35 to 16.58) and low income (odds ratio _ 5.94; 95% confidence interval 1.87 to 18.89). In a second multivariable logistic regression analysis, every point higher on the health literacy scale increased the likelihood of eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day (odds ratio _ 1.02; 95% confidence interval 1.003 to 1.03), being a non-smoker (odds ratio _ 1.02; 95% confidence interval 1.0003 to 1.03) and having good self-rated health (odds ratio _ 1.02; 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.04), independently of age, education, gender, ethnicity and income. Conclusions: The results encourage efforts to monitor health literacy in the British population and examine associations with engagement with preventative health behaviours.

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 · 10.1136/jech.2006.053967

Cites

17 of 17 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

Cited by

See all 592

Metadata

Authors
Wagner, C. V., Knight, K., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J.
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-11-13
Volume
61
Issue
12
Pages
1086-1090
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
DOI
10.1136/jech.2006.053967
OpenAlex
W2168881144
Cited by
592
References
17
FWCI
24.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.