Aging and Functional Health Literacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the association between age and limited health literacy, overall and by health literacy test, and to investigate the mediating role of cognitive function. METHOD: The Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were searched. Eligible studies were conducted in any country or language, included participants aged ≥50 years, presented a measure of association between age and health literacy, and were published through September 2013. RESULTS: Seventy analyses in 60 studies were included in the systematic review; 29 of these were included in the meta-analysis. Older age was strongly associated with limited health literacy in analyses that measured health literacy as reading comprehension, reasoning, and numeracy skills (random-effects odds ratio [OR] = 4.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.13-5.64). By contrast, older age was weakly associated with limited health literacy in studies that measured health literacy as medical vocabulary (random-effects OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03-1.37). Evidence on the mediating role of cognitive function was limited. DISCUSSION: Health literacy tests that utilize a range of fluid cognitive abilities and mirror everyday health tasks frequently observe skill limitations among older adults. Vocabulary-based health literacy skills appear more stable with age. Researchers should select measurement tests wisely when assessing health literacy of older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".