MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417119340 · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12881-9

Development and validation of a new comprehensive measurement tool for health insurance literacy

2025· article· en· W4417119340 on OpenAlex
Reut Ron, Moriah Ellen, Paula Feder‐Bubis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsNursing researchHealth administrationPublic healthHealth services researchHealth literacyQuality of Life Research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health insurance literacy (HIL) reflects individuals' ability to understand, select, and effectively use health insurance, impacting healthcare access and utilization. Existing measurement tools often lack comprehensiveness or contextual relevance. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive questionnaire for measuring HIL, encompassing all recognized dimensions and expanding upon the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), while also adapting it to the specific cultural and national context, using Israel as a case study and proof of concept. METHODS: A multi-phase methodology was employed to develop a comprehensive HIL questionnaire, including an extensive literature review, expert consultations, and iterative pilot testing to ensure cultural and contextual relevance. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability testing were conducted using data from a representative sample of 1,012 adults to validate its psychometric properties. RESULTS: A 75-item questionnaire was designed, covering four domains: confidence and behavior in choosing and using health insurance (HILM), self-report confidence in understanding of key insurance concepts, objective knowledge assessment, and self-assessment of HIL. The questionnaire employs a combination of Likert-type scales and binary scoring for objective knowledge items. EFA confirmed a robust multidimensional structure. The final model accounted for 61% of the variance in the confidence and behavior domains and 57% in the concept domain, while the objective knowledge domain showed less definitive factor loadings. Internal consistency was high across all domains (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80-0.95), and concurrent and convergent validity analyses demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with external measures of understanding and self-assessed knowledge, supporting its psychometric robustness. CONCLUSIONS: This validated questionnaire presents a robust, culturally adapted measure of HIL, integrating both objective knowledge and subjective confidence, offering insights into the multidimensional nature of HIL. It provides critical insights for policymakers and educators aiming to enhance public understanding and effective use of health insurance, setting the stage for targeted interventions and broader international applications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.265 · 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