Search

Background: The construct of physical literacy is gaining traction internationally and yet measurement of physical literacy is in its infancy. This paper describes the development of a pictorial child report scale of perceived physical literacy based on the comprehensive Australian Physical Literacy Framework, which includes 30 elements within four domains (physical, psychological, cognitive and social). Methods: An expert reference committee with academic and industry representatives from physical education, sport and education was formed to provide input to each stage of the process. Qualitative research methods were used to (a) determine a character that was gender neutral, not representative of a particular race or ethnicity and appealing to children, and (b) the content (i.e. relationship between item images, wording and format with the intended construct) and response processes (i.e. interpretation of items) of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest). A total of 17 children aged 4-12 years were interviewed as part of the study. Results: A 'bunny' character was preferred by children. Overall, children interpreted most images as intended by the researchers, and, in many cases, without having to hear the words that went with the images. Some of the image scenarios were amended and redrawn according to the suggestions received from children and the expert reference group. Discussion: This study has provided qualitative evidence based on the content of the PL-C Quest elements and domains, on the ways respondents understand, and interpret the items. This is the first step towards the development and testing of a pictorial instrument to comprehensively measure children's self-perceived physical literacy.

Background Measuring health literacy can inform interventions to address health inequities. This study used cluster analysis to examine health literacy data to determine if it can provide more insightful information than standard descriptive analysis to better inform intervention development. Methods Using data from the Australian National Health Survey (2018), this study compared descriptive analysis and cluster analysis results of two states—New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria—generated from the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Based on the nine scale scores of the HLQ, a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method for linkage was undertaken. Results The number of NSW and Victoria respondents was 1018 and 923, respectively. The nine HLQ scale full sample mean scores from both states were similar. However, the cluster analyses identified 11 clusters for NSW and 12 clusters for Victoria. While six clusters from each state presented similar health literacy patterns, five and six clusters from NSW and Victoria, respectively, displayed unique health literacy patterns. Conclusions The results demonstrate that descriptive analysis only provides an overview and may lead to one-size-fits-all interventions. The varying health literacy patterns among subgroups resulting from the cluster analysis pave the way to inform tailored actions to improve health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health literacy has evolved from a focus on individual skills to an interactive process influenced by relationships and the health system. Various instruments measure health literacy, developed from different conceptions and often for different measurement purposes. The aim of this study was to compare the properties of four widely used health literacy instruments: Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA), Newest Vital Sign (NVS), European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU-Q47), and Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Methods: This was a within-subject study comparing instrument performance. Composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency, floor/ceiling effects determined discriminate ability across low-to-high score ranges, and Spearman's R correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between instruments, particularly scales aiming to measure similar constructs. Results: Fifty-nine patients consented, with 43 completing all four instruments. Internal consistency was high for all scales (composite reliability range 0.76–0.95). Floor and ceiling effects were observed, with TOFHLA demonstrating the largest ceiling effect (>62) and NVS the only floor effect (18%). Only moderate correlations were found between TOFHLA and NVS (r = 0.60) and between HLS-EU-Q47 and HLQ scales (r ~0.6). Conclusion: Our study found low to moderate correlations between the instruments, indicating they measure different constructs of health literacy. Clinicians and researchers should consider the intended measurement purpose and constructs when choosing an instrument. If the purpose of measurement is to understand reading, comprehension, and numeracy skills in individuals and populations, then performance based functional health literacy instruments such as the TOFHLA and NVS will be suitable. However, if the purpose is to generate insights into broader elements of health literacy, including social supports and relationships with health providers, then the HLS-EU and HLQ may be useful. The findings highlight the need for careful instrument selection to ensure meaningful and appropriate data interpretation. As improving population health literacy is a national priority in many countries, it is important that clinicians and researchers understand the measurement differences offered by different instruments to assist them to choose the right instrument for their measurement purpose. It is unknown whether health literacy instruments measure the same health literacy construct. This study compares psychometric properties and correlations between four widely used instruments: two performance-based functional health literacy instruments (Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults and Newest Vital Sign) and two self-report multidimensional instruments (European Health Literacy Survey and Health Literacy Questionnaire). New insight into the different constructs these instruments measure and implications for their application in research, policy, and clinical practice is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communities of practice are commonly used to support members in responding to public health issues. This study evaluated the outcomes of five co-designed communities of practice to determine if members' expectations were met, if knowledge sharing between members extended to knowledge translation, and if that supported members in addressing public health issues. Data were collected through an initial needs assessment, observations were made during community of practice sessions over 1 year, and qualitative interviews were conducted at the end of that year. The findings provided evidence that members' expectations were met, knowledge sharing took place within the communities of practice, and personal benefits gained supported members in advancing knowledge sharing with other members to knowledge translation outside their community of practice. Results demonstrate three outcomes of knowledge translation for members: disseminating knowledge to others, applying knowledge to make small-scale changes in practice and leveraging the knowledge to expand its reach beyond members' organizations. While the scale and speed of expanding outcomes were below initial expectations as indicated in the initial needs assessments, members remained optimistic about achieving larger-scale impacts in the future. This study showed that communities of practice achieve gradual progress rather than quick wins. Co-design supports the facilitators in meeting members' needs, which can positively contribute to members sharing knowledge and translating that knowledge to support their practice to address public health issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]