Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Health Literacy on Social Determinants of Health Questionnaire (K-HL-SDHQ)


Autoři: Mikyeong Cho aff001;  Hyeonkyeong Lee aff001;  Young-Me Lee aff002;  Ja-yin Lee aff001;  Haeyoung Min aff003;  Youlim Kim aff001;  Sookyung Kim aff001
Působiště autorů: Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea aff001;  School of Nursing, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America aff002;  College of Nursing, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, South Korea aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224557

Souhrn

The association between the social determinant of health (SDH) and sustainable development goals, has directed attention toward the influence of SDH. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the instruments used to assess SDH. Thus, this study was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the Korean Version of the Health Literacy on Social Determinants of Health Questionnaire (K-HL-SDHQ). A total of 660 workers in Korea participated in an online survey. The K-HL-SDHQ measures four dimensions (Access, Understand, Appraise, and Apply) with 33 items. The HL-SDHQ was translated into Korean using the forward-back translation method. To test the validity and reliability of the Korean translated HL-SDHQ, item analysis for the 33 items was conducted. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s α, an exploratory factor analysis, and a confirmatory factor analysis. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI)/universal agreement of this study was .12 and S-CVI/average was .83 (item-CVI range = .50–1.00). The goodness of fit determined through a confirmatory factor analysis of the four dimensions was acceptable (χ2 (489) = 1475.054, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .87, TLI = .85). The K-HL-SDHQ also demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .92). The findings indicate that the K-HL-SDHQ is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess the SDH of workers in Korea. It is suggested that this tool can be applied through repeated research with workers and non-workers for health promotion, and to enhance researchers’ understanding of the different levels of the HL-SDHQ.

Klíčová slova:

Behavioral and social aspects of health – Factor analysis – Health education and awareness – Health services administration and management – Korean people – Political aspects of health – Research validity – Socioeconomic aspects of health


Zdroje

1. G20. G20 Action Plan on 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Hangzhou. 2016. 9 https://www.b20germany.org/fileadmin/user_upload/G20_Action_Plan_on_the_2030_Agenda_for_Sustainable_Development.pdf

2. World Health Organization. Shanghai declaration on promoting health in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(1):7–8. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daw103 28180270.

3. World Health Organization. About social determinants of health. Available from: https://www.who.int/social_determinants/sdh_definition/en/ Cited 5 October 2018.

4. Allen J, Balfour R, Bell R, Marmot M. Social determinants of mental health. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2014;26(4):392–407. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2014.928270 25137105.

5. Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TAJ, Taylor S. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2008;372(9650):1661–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6 18994664.

6. Jensen BB, Currie C, Dyson A, Eisenstadt N, Melhuish E. Early years, family and education task group: Report. European review of social determinants of health and the health divide in the WHO European region. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2013.

7. Donkin A, Goldblatt P, Allen J, Nathanson V, Marmot M. Global action on the social determinants of health. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(Suppl1):e000603. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000603 29379648; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC5759713.

8. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.

9. Institute of Medicine. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216032/ doi: 10.17226/10883 25009856.

10. Gonzalez-Chica DA, Mnisi Z, Avery J, Duszynski K, Doust J, Tideman P, et al. Effect of health literacy on quality of life amongst patients with ischaemic heart disease in Australian general practice. PloS One. 2016;11(3):e0151079. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151079 26943925; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC 4778924.

11. Jorm AF. Mental health literacy: public knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177(5):396–401. doi: 10.1192/bjp.177.5.396 11059991.

12. DeWalt DA, Callahan LF, Hawk VH, Broucksou KA, Hink A, Rudd R, et al. Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit. (AHRQ Publication No. 10-0046-EF) Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2010. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/chain/practice-tools/toolkit-with-appendix.pdf Cited 5 October 2018.

13. Matsumoto M, Nakayama K. Development of the health literacy on social determinants of health questionnaire in Japanese adults. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3971-3 28056903;PubMed Central PMCID:PMC5217562.

14. Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 22276600; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3292515.

15. Kang SJ, Lee TW, Kim GS, Lee JH. The levels of health literacy and related factors among middle-aged adults in Seoul, Korea. Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion. 2012;29(3):75–89.

16. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Preacher KJ, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behav Res. 2001;36(4):611–37. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06 26822184.

17. Furukawa R, Driessnack M, Colclough Y. A committee approach maintaining cultural originality in translation. Appl Nurs Res. 2014;27(2):144–6. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2013.11.011 24332480.

18. Rodríguez SA, Roter DL, Castillo-Salgado C, Hooker GW, Erby LH. Translation and validation of a Spanish-language genetic health literacy screening tool. Health Psychol.2015;34(2):120–9. doi: 10.1037/hea0000162 25622082.

19. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147 16977646.

20. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459–67. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199 17654487.

21. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 31–158.

22. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312

23. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2010.

24. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 359.

25. Halek M, Holle D, Bartholomeyczik S. Development and evaluation of the content validity, practicability and feasibility of the Innovative dementia-oriented assessment system for challenging behaviour in residents with dementia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):554. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2469-8 28806934; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5557472.

26. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6. http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02291575

27. Zuur AF, Tuck ID, Bailey N. Dynamic factor analysis to estimate common trends in fisheries time series. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2003;60(5). 542–552. doi: 10.1139/f03-030

28. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine. 2010;8(3). doi: 10.33151/ajp.8.3.93

29. Busch A-K, Rockenbauch K, Schmutzer G, Brähler E. Do medical students like communication? validation of the German CSAS (communication skills attitude scale). GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015;32(1). doi: 10.3205/zma000953 25699103; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4330630.

30. Gatrell CJ, Cooper CL. Work-life balance: working for whom? Eur J Int Manag. 2008;2(1):71–86.

31. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

32. Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(3):269–74. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199706)20:3<269::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g 9179180.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11