RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Associated with both socioeconomic position and health outcomes, health literacy (HL) may be a mechanism contributing to social disparities. However, it is often difficult for general practitioners (GPs) to assess their patients' HL level. OBJECTIVE: To analyse disagreements about patient HL between GPs and their patients according to the patient's socioeconomic position. METHODS: For each of the 15 participating GPs (from the Paris-Saclay University network), every adult consulting at the practice on a single day was recruited. Patients completed the European HL Survey questionnaire and provided socio-demographic information. For each patient, doctors answered 4 questions from the HL questionnaire with their opinion of the patient's HL. The doctor-patient disagreement about each patient's HL was analysed with mixed logistic models to study its associations with patients' occupational, educational, and financial characteristics. RESULTS: The analysis covered the 292 patients (88.2% of the 331 included patients) for whom both patients and GPs responded. The overall disagreement was 23.9%. In all, 71.8% of patients estimated their own HL as higher than their doctors did, and the gap between doctors' answers and those of their patients widened from the top to the bottom of the social ladder. The odd ratio for the 'synthetic disagreement' variable for workers versus managers was 3.48 (95% CI: 1.46-8.26). CONCLUSIONS: The lower the patient's place on the social ladder, the greater the gap between the patient's and doctor's opinion of the patient's HL. This greater gap may contribute to the reproduction or maintenance of social disparities in care and health.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Short versions of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU) questionnaire are increasingly used to measure and compare health literacy (HL) in populations worldwide. As no validated versions of these questionnaires have thus far appeared in French, this study aimed to study the psychometric properties of the French translation of the 16- and 6-item short versions (HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6), including their measurement invariance across sex, age, and education level. METHODS: A consensual French version of the HLS-EU-Q16 and HLS-EU-Q6 was developed by following the current recommendations for transcultural questionnaire adaptation. It was then completed by 317 patients recruited in waiting rooms of general practitioners in the Paris area (France). Structural validity was studied with the Rasch model for the HLS-EU-Q16 and confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) for the HLS-EU-Q6. Concurrent and convergent validity, respectively, were assessed by scores on the Functional Communicative Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL) questionnaire and the physicians' evaluations of their patient's HL. RESULTS: The 16 items of the HLS-EU-Q16 were Rasch homogenous but meaningful differential item functioning (DIF) was found across sex, age, and/or education level for eight items. The CFA model fit for the HLS-EU-Q6 was poor. The overall scores for both HLS-EU short versions correlated poorly with the FCCHL scores. Similarly, HL levels defined using either short-version score did not agree with physicians' HL assessments. CONCLUSION: The French version of the HLS-EU-Q16 has acceptable psychometric properties, despite meaningful DIF for age, sex and education level and a poor discriminative power among subjects with average to high HL level. We recommend its use to measure HL in populations with sufficient reading skills to discriminate between subjects with low to average HL. Also, sensitivity analyses should be performed to evaluate the potential measurement bias due to DIF. Our results did not demonstrate the validity of the HLS-EU-Q6.