Developing an Evidence-based Questionnaire and Evaluating Health Information Literacy for Chinese Residents

Session Type
Understanding and using evidence
Yu X1, Luo M2, Chen Y1, Wen J3
1Evidence Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, China, China
2School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, China, China
3Gansu Provincial Centre for Development of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China, China

Background: Health information literacy is the ability of people to obtain, understand, screen, and apply health information. There is no investigation into how Chinese residents understand and use evidence.
Objectives: To develop the Health Information Literacy of Chinese Residents during the COVID-19 Questionnaire based on evidence, measure its reliability and validity, and investigate the level of health information literacy for Chinese residents.
Methods: The development process of the questionnaire included the determination of questionnaire items, expert consultation, and validation. According to the National Residents Health Literacy Monitoring Questionnaire (2020) and the 2019 Informed Health Choices key concepts, the researchers drafted the questionnaire including all four dimensions of health information literacy. This was followed by several rounds of discussions by the working group. Experts in relevant fields were then invited to evaluate the draft questionnaire and revisions were made. The reliability and validity of the finalized version were examined in Gansu Province, China. The method of stratified, multi-stage, simple random, and proportional probability sampling was adopted in the formal investigation. If the score was higher than 80% (more than 11 correct answers), we believe have health information literacy.
Results: The research team preliminarily formulated 14 items encompassing the four dimensions of health information literacy. After consulting 28 experts in relevant fields, modifications were made. A convenience sample of 185 Chinese residents was invited to validate the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for internal consistency was 0.715, and the test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient after two weeks was 0.906, suggesting that the questionnaire content and measurement structure were relatively stable. A total of 2446 questionnaires were collected. After removing 86 invalid and unqualified questionnaires, the effective rate of the questionnaire was 96.48%. Only 1/4 of people have health information literacy and have knowledge of understanding and using evidence.
Conclusions: The number and speed of evidence production are increasing currently, yet there is a huge gap between the public's understanding and use of evidence and the production of evidence. Therefore, we not only need to produce high-quality evidence but also help the public with evidence-informed choices.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Public involvement.