43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Political views, health literacy, and COVID-19 beliefs and behaviors: A moderated mediation model

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rationale

          Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 requires that people understand the need for and engage in protective behaviors. Given the complexity and rapid progression of media information about the pandemic, health literacy could be essential to acquiring the accurate beliefs, concern for societal risks, and appreciation of restrictive policies needed to motivate these behaviors. Yet with the increasingly politicized nature of COVID-related issues in the United States, health literacy could be an asset for those with more liberal views but less so for those with more conservative views.

          Objective

          This study tested a hypothesized model proposing that political views moderate the associations of health literacy with COVID-19 protective behaviors as well as the mediational roles of accurate and inaccurate COVID-19 beliefs, concern for society, and governmental control attitudes.

          Methods

          We surveyed residents in three diverse regions of California in June 2020 ( N = 669) and February 2021 ( N = 611). Participants completed measures of health literacy, political views, and COVID-19 beliefs and behaviors.

          Results

          Moderated mediational analyses largely supported the proposed model with both samples. Health literacy was associated with more accurate COVID-19 beliefs, less inaccurate COVID-19 beliefs, greater concern for societal risks, more positive attitudes regarding restrictive government control, more protective behavior, less risky behavior, and stronger vaccine intentions; beliefs, concern for society, and governmental control attitudes mediated the health literacy-behavior relationships. As predicted, however, these associations of health literacy with adaptive beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors varied according to political views. The direct and mediated relationships were held for participants with more liberal views and, to a lesser extent, for those with moderate views, but they were weaker or absent for participants with more conservative views.

          Conclusions

          These findings contribute new evidence of processes linking health literacy with adaptive beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors and how social and political contexts can shape those processes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

          G*Power (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996) was designed as a general stand-alone power analysis program for statistical tests commonly used in social and behavioral research. G*Power 3 is a major extension of, and improvement over, the previous versions. It runs on widely used computer platforms (i.e., Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X 10.4) and covers many different statistical tests of the t, F, and chi2 test families. In addition, it includes power analyses for z tests and some exact tests. G*Power 3 provides improved effect size calculators and graphic options, supports both distribution-based and design-based input modes, and offers all types of power analyses in which users might be interested. Like its predecessors, G*Power 3 is free.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

            Approximately 80 million Americans have limited health literacy, which puts them at greater risk for poorer access to care and poorer health outcomes. To update a 2004 systematic review and determine whether low health literacy is related to poorer use of health care, outcomes, costs, and disparities in health outcomes among persons of all ages. English-language articles identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Cochrane Library databases and hand-searching (search dates for articles on health literacy, 2003 to 22 February 2011; for articles on numeracy, 1966 to 22 February 2011). Two reviewers independently selected studies that compared outcomes by differences in directly measured health literacy or numeracy levels. One reviewer abstracted article information into evidence tables; a second reviewer checked information for accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated study quality by using predefined criteria, and the investigative team jointly graded the overall strength of evidence. 96 relevant good- or fair-quality studies in 111 articles were identified: 98 articles on health literacy, 22 on numeracy, and 9 on both. Low health literacy was consistently associated with more hospitalizations; greater use of emergency care; lower receipt of mammography screening and influenza vaccine; poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately; poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages; and, among elderly persons, poorer overall health status and higher mortality rates. Poor health literacy partially explains racial disparities in some outcomes. Reviewers could not reach firm conclusions about the relationship between numeracy and health outcomes because of few studies or inconsistent results among studies. Searches were limited to articles published in English. No Medical Subject Heading terms exist for identifying relevant studies. No evidence concerning oral health literacy (speaking and listening skills) and outcomes was found. Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes and poorer use of health care services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

              No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Soc Sci Med
                Soc Sci Med
                Social Science & Medicine (1982)
                The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0277-9536
                1873-5347
                30 January 2023
                30 January 2023
                : 115672
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Psychological Sciences, University of California, Merced, USA
                [b ]School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Australia
                [c ]Department of Public Health, University of California, Merced, USA
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road, Merced, CA, 95343, USA.
                Article
                S0277-9536(23)00027-8 115672
                10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115672
                9884608
                36764089
                e06a9f0e-01c2-4274-96e1-7cd7b98bafef
                © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 27 June 2022
                : 9 January 2023
                : 10 January 2023
                Categories
                Article

                Health & Social care
                covid-19,health literacy,protective behavior,risk behavior,vaccine intentions,illness representations,political views,political polarization

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content70

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors587