Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment (using the EPHPP), intervention type and outcome of reviewed studies N = 23

From: Evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the EU: a systematic review

Study (primary author) Selection bias Study design Confounders Blinding Data collection methods Withdrawals and drop-outs Global rating intervention type Dimension of health literacy Outcome
Meppelink et al., 2015 [24] S S S M S S Strong Web-based intervention Functional Functional health literacy
         Critical Critical health literacy
Elbert et al., 2016 [26] M S S M S W Moderate Web-based intervention Functional Healthy lifestyle
Gilbert et al., 2012 [27] M S S S W M Moderate Tailored information leaflet Functional Healthy lifestyle
         Critical  
Meppelink et al., 2015 [25] W S S M S M Moderate Web-based intervention Functional Functional health literacy
         Critical Critical health literacy
Heasum et al., 2017 [23] M S S W S M Moderate Web-based intervention Functional Functional health literacy
Sahm et al., 2011 [18] M S S M M W Moderate Tailored information leaflet Functional Understanding of drug label
Walker et al., 2007 [19] M S S M S W Moderate Tailored information leaflet Functional Knowledge
Webb et al., 2008 [32] M M W M M M Moderate Group-based intervention Functional Self-management
         Interactive Healthy lifestyle
          Health status
          Access to health care
          Ability to make treatment choices
          Symptom recognition and monitoring
Berger et al., 2013 [29] W M W M W M Weak Group-based intervention Critical Level of critical health literacy
          Self-management
Blanson Henkeman et al., 2013 [17] W S W W S S Weak Individual, personal contact Functional Knowledge
          Self-management
Boxell et al., 2012 [20] W M W M S S Weak Tailored information leaflet Functional Symptom recognition and monitoring
Garcia-Retamero et al., 2010 [35] W M S M M W Weak Web-based intervention Functional Understanding of health risk
Galesic et al., 2011 [36] W S W M M W Weak Aids to support numerical concepts Functional Understanding of health risk
Galesic et al., 2013 [37] W S M W W W Weak Aids to support numerical concepts Functional Ability to make treatment choices
Haesum et al., 2016 [21] W M W M M S Weak Web-based intervention Functional Functional health literacy
          Self-management
          Shared decision making
Kasper et al., 2005 [38] M M M W M W Weak Aids to support numerical concepts Functional Level of functional health literacy
          Shared decision making
Lilholt et al., 2016 [22] M M W M W M Weak Web-based intervention Functional Functional health literacy
          Health status
          Self-management
          Shared decision making
Long et al., 2011 [30] W M W M W W Weak Self-management support by call-center Functional Knowledge
         Critical Empowerment
          Self-management
          Critical health literacy
Matic-Strametz et al., 2012 [33] W S W W M S Weak Group-based intervention Functional Knowledge
         Critical Critical health literacy
Muller et al., 2017 [34] W S S M S W Weak Web-based intervention Functional Functional health ltieray
          Healthy lifestyle
          Self-management
Neville et al., 2005 [28] W M W M W W Weak Web-based intervention Functional Understanding of health risk
        Multi-component programme   Self-management
        Individual, personal contact   Understanding of drugs label
Reiter et al., 2012 [39] W M W W W W Weak Group-based intervention Functional Knowledge
        Multi-component programme   Healthy lifestyle
          Health status
White et al., 2012 [31] S S W W S W Weak Individual, personal contact Functional Self-management
         Critical Ability to make treatment choices
          Access to health care
          Empowerment
          Healthy lifestyle
  1. S strong, M moderate, W weak. Global Rating is calculated using information across all six domains: strong (no weak ratings), moderate (one weak rating), or weak (two or more weak ratings)
\