MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Developing a Health System Literacy Measure for Chinese Immigrants in Canada: Adapting the HLS19-NAV Scale

2025· preprint· en· W4413799907 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Anh Thu Vo, Ying Cao, Lixia Yang, Robin Urquhart, Yanqing Yi, Peter Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of NewfoundlandBeatrice Hunter Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research Institute
KeywordsCronbach's alphaConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisHealth literacyScale (ratio)Discriminant validityContext (archaeology)Structural equation modelingConstruct validityPsychologyHealth careLiteracyImmigrationPopulationMedicineConvergent validityContent validityNursingClinical psychologyPatient satisfactionStatisticsPsychometricsEnvironmental healthGeographyMathematicsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health system literacy is crucial for immigrants to navigate health care systems and access necessary services. Little is known about how well immigrants understand and use the healthcare system in Canada. This study aimed to adapt and validate a health system literacy scale for the Canada context (HSL-CAN) using factor analysis approach. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 11st to July 19th, 2024, among Chinese individuals aged 30 or older who have lived in Canada for at least 6 months. The HSL-CAN was developed through a literature review, patient and provider consultation, and adaptation of the European Health Literacy Population Survey 2019-2021 for navigational health literacy measurement (HLS19 – NAV). The measure was translated into Simplified and Traditional Chinese, and its content was evaluated by stakeholders’ feedback. Structural validity was evaluated using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis. Convergent and discriminant validity were tested using correlations with the HLS19-SF12 and known-group validity was evaluated by using ANOVA or ttest and reporting effect size. Internal consistency was evaluated through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability. Results: Initially, HSL-CAN contained 25 items developed using a 5-Likert response scale. Some minor revisions were made according to the stakeholders’ feedback (n=12). Five items with factor loading < 0.4 were removed based on the EFA. The one-factor CFA satisfied good fit indices: CFI=0.960, TLI=0.955, SRMR=0.033, RMSEA (90%CI) = 0.025(0.016-0.032), and χ^2/df ratio of 1.41. The scale showed a solid internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha=0.81; composite reliability=0.812). For convergent and discriminant validity, the HSL-CAN showed a high correlation with the ‘health care’ construct but a low correlation with the ‘health prevention and promotion construct’ construct of HLS19 – SF12. Known-group validity showed large mean differences by education, income, non-cancer chronic comorbidities, and small to moderate mean differences by gender, age groups, employment status, self-rated health, and assistance needed to see a healthcare provider. Conclusion: Study findings provide evidence that the HSL-CAN is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating health system literacy in Chinese population in Canada. However, further refinement is recommended before using this scale to the general population in Canada.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→