English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The definition of this concept and its domains, as well as its measurement, will allow to identify health inequalities. And therefore focus the focus of professional intervention to ensure equitable access to health. The health literacy assessment tool should be based on the defined literacy concept and address the domains of the underlying theory, considering public health behaviours and outcomes. According to the European Consortium for Health Literacy, three dimensions of literacy are distinguished: functional literacy, interactive literacy and critical literacy. Objectives To compare the health literacy levels obtained by applying two different measurement tools. Methodology To assess Health Literacy levels were applied two tests: HLS-EU-PT (European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire - Portugal) and METER (Medical Term Recognition Test). The first, quite comprehensive and previously used at European level, of self-perception, and the second more objective. These validated instruments were applied in a pharmacy in the municipality of Mealhada, to 377 individuals resident there. Results HLS-EU-PT presents 40.8% of individuals with adequate literacy, while METER classifies 49.1% of the sample. There is a difference of 8.3% in the results. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between them (p = 0.001). METER is limited to the assessment of functional literacy levels. Too narrow a perspective for a concept as broad as health literacy. In this context, when measuring literacy is based on word recognition, limited levels of health literacy are found in 50.9% of individuals. Conclusion Statistically, the two tests used present a significant correlation. Although METER misclassifies some individuals with adequate literacy who actually have inadequate literacy, this happens more often when the scores obtained are reduced. When the score on one test is high, on the other test, it also happens.

Assessment of Health Literacy Levels: HLS-EU-PT versus METER