MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991203741 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz186.045

Gender differences of health literacy in first and second generation migrants: A systematic review

2019· review· en· W2991203741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Digo Chakraverty, Annika Baumeister, Angela Aldin, Ina Monsef, Tina Jakob, ÜS Seven, Görkem Anapa, Nicole Skoetz, Christiane Woopen, Elke Kalbe

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLHealth literacyMEDLINESystematic reviewMedicineInclusion (mineral)LiteracyData extractionImmigrationGerontologyPsychologyPsychological interventionFamily medicineMedical educationHealth careNursingPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Health literacy, defined as all skills and capabilities that enable a person to access, understand, appraise and apply health information, is a key factor regarding disease management, health outcomes, and health-decision-making. Internationally, migrants have been identified as a high-risk group for limited health literacy. However, it remains unclear if female and male migrants process health information differently. This systematic review aims to analyze gender differences in the health literacy of first and second generation migrants. Methods We performed a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched OVID (MEDLINE), PsychInfo and CINAHL for original articles providing extractable data on the health literacy of male and/or female migrants. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts and full text articles for according to predefined inclusion criteria, including the use of a validated health literacy measurement tool, applying it to first and/or second generation adult migrants. We adapted a data extraction sheet from the Cochrane Collaboration for extracting relevant data. The included studies were evaluated against a standardized set of quality criteria. Results Our search yielded 3411 records. We included 48 studies, of which 37 were conducted in the USA and Canada, with 22 focusing Hispanic and Asian immigrants’ functional health literacy; the nine European studies examined a variety of work migrants and refugees using a comprehensive approach (e.g. measured by the HLS-EU-Q47). Thus, a strong heterogeneity in defining and measuring health literacy and in the populations examined can be stated. 15 studies exclusively examined the health literacy of women; none dealt with men only. Conclusions The heterogeneity in defining and measuring health literacy in migrants as well as the diversity of the populations studied make it difficult to compare international research in this area. There is a lack of research focusing male migrants. Key messages International research on health literacy with gender-specific data on migrants reveals a strong heterogeneity in defining and measuring health literacy. International research on health literacy with gender-specific data on migrants reveals a lack of studies regarding male migrants’ health literacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.365
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.130 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207