Skip to main content
Download PDF

The relationship between health literacy and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 16, Article number: 201 (2018) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Low health literacy often has an association with poor health outcomes such as low levels of self-efficacy, increased mortality, poor health status and reduced quality of life (QOL). The aim of the study was to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between health literacy (HL) and QOL based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases such as CNKI, and Wanfang were searched from 1970 until February 1, 2018. The pooled correlation coefficient (PCOR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) between HL and QOL were estimated using R software. Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored using subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression.

Results

Twenty-three studies, with a total of 12,303 subjects,were included. The PCOR between HL and QOL was 0.35 (95%CI: 0.25–0.44). Considering different dimensions of HL, the PCOR between QOL and health knowledge, health behavior, health belief, and health skill were 0.36 (95% CI: 0.04–0.61), 0.36 (95%CI: 0.13–0.55), 0.39 (95%CI: 0.10–0.62), and 0.42 (95%CI: 0.03–0.69), respectively. The PCOR between HL and the two dimensions of QOL was lower than the total PCOR between HL and QOL. In subgroup analysis, the PCOR between HL and QOL was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.13, 0.69) among community residents, 0.45 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.61) in China, and 0.45 (95%CI: 0.24, 0.62) based on cohort studies. Sensitivity analyses showed that the stability of results had no significant after excluding the study (p < 0.001). Meta-regression showed that cohort study design, studies conducted in China, and publication before 2012 may be important influencing factors.

Conclusions

Health literacy was moderately correlated with quality of life, but this finding needs to be supported by more evidence.

Background

Quality of life (QOL) refers to how individuals subjectively assess their own well-being and their ability to perform physical, psychological, and social functions [1]. As an indicator of health and living standards, the concept and connotations of QOL were defined in multiple ways because of different research objectives and purpose, QOL is a multidimensional concept that can fully reflect person’s overall health situation by measuring four dimensions: physical health, physiological health, social health, and mental health. Nowadays, QOL is viewed as a significant outcome of health care and has been increasingly used as a comprehensive health indicator in medical interventions and population health surveys [2]. QOL is mainly used in evaluation of health status and health resources and used as an aspect of influencing factors and health intervention measures, which have higher stability and sensitivity [3].

Health literacy (HL) is linked to literacy and entails people’s knowledge, motivation and competence to access, understand, appraise, and apply health information to make judgments and take decisions in everyday life concerning healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion to maintain or improve QOL during the course of life [4].

At present, the United States, Canada, Australia, and China have all conducted national HL surveys and Europe participated in a comparative European health literacy survey. The survey in Europe showed that there was lack of HL about 47.6% of the study population [5]. In Canada the figure was about 60% [6] and in Australia it was 21% [7], while only 12% in the United States [8], and 9.48% in China had good HL [9]. HL is becoming an important determinant of life expectancy and might also affect QOL.

Many studies [10,11,12,13,14,15] have investigated the relationship between HL and QOL, but the results seemed inconsistent. Some studies showed that QOL had a positive association with HL, while other studies showed that QOL had a negative association with HL [10, 16]. In China, HL was divided into four dimensions and each was compared QOL: health knowledge, health belief, health behavior and health skill [17,18,19]. Similarly, the surveys of HL abroad were divided into different levels; QOL differed depending on how high or low the levels of HL were [20,21,22]. The differences in these results, the survey dimensions of HL and QOL, and the differences in the questionnaires potentially lead to be inconsistent conclusions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide a complete overview of the literature regarding the direct impact of HL on QOL, and to discuss the correlation between HL and two dimensions of QOL and the correlation between QOL and four dimensions of HL based on a systematic review and meta- analysis.

Methods

This systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [23] (Additional file 1: Table S1).

We searched English and Chinese language publications on EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases such as CNKI and Wanfang from 1970 to February 1, 2018. Studies were searched using logical terms, and search strategy is as follows: “#1 health literacy,” “#2 literacy,” “#3 numeracy”; “#5 quality of life,” “#6 life quality,” “#7 health-related quality of life,” “#8 QOL,” “#9 HRQOL,” “#10 life style.” # 4 is “#1 OR #2 OR #3”, # 11 is “#5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10”, and # 12 is “#4 AND #11” finally. Medical subject headings (MeSH) and wild-card options were used where appropriate. Meanwhile, the bibliographies of original studies and reviews were manually searched.

Studies that met the following criteria were included: [1] the study subjects were human, [2] the levels of HL and QOL were conducted and compared as the key objective, [3] the outcome was the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL, and [4] original articles published in English or Chinese (no posters abstracts, letters to the editor etc.).

Studies were excluded for the following reasons: [1] case reports or review articles, [2] QOL or HL was not measured or was not a part of a validated questionnaire, [3] articles were not published in peer-reviewed journals, and [4] there was no the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL. For studies that had been repeated, only the most recent and detailed studies were included in the analysis.

In some studies, there were only QOL scores at different levels of HL without the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL, and there were also some studies with the correlation coefficient compared with the reference materials. These controversial articles are excluded from meta-analysis through discussion.

Two authors independently extracted the following data from the selected studies: the first author, year of publication, design, survey time, location, study population, QOL instrument, and HL instrument. The quality of each of the included studies was independently assessed by two investigators using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [24] or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [25]. The quality of cross-sectional studies was assessed using AHRQ, and cohort studies were assessed using NOS. The NOS scale has 8 items, and the highest possible total score is 9. The quality of the study is indicated by the scores: 0–5 indicates low quality, 6–7 indicates medium quality, and 8–9 indicates high quality [26]. The AHRQ scale has 11 items, all of which are rated as “yes” (1 point), “no” or “unclear” (0 point), and the highest possible total score is 11. The quality of the study is indicated by the scores: 0–3 indicates low quality, 4–7 indicates medium quality, and 8–11 indicates high quality [27].

Statistical analysis

Different results indicated effects of different sizes regarding the relationship between HL and QOL. Summary statistics were then calculated. Most meta-analysis did not directly use the values of each correlation coefficients when combined correlation coefficients, because the variance of each correlation coefficient was too dependent on the correlation. Thus, we needed to convert various data into correlation coefficient uniformly, for which meta-analysis was performed. The method we used was to carry out the correlation coefficient (r value) of each study by Fisher’s Z transformation, calculate the standard error, and calculate the summary Fisher’s Z value using the inverse variance. Then a formula was used to transform the Z value into an r value [28].

To calculate the summary or pooled r, and 95% CI, the hypothesis test was used to judge whether the correlation was statistically significant. Lastly, a forest plot was used to indicate the effect size. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and the Egger’s test.

R software (R × 64 3.4.1) was used for meta-analysis. Firstly, it estimated heterogeneity between studies using Q and I2 statistics. According to the Q-statistic, if the p < 0.05 and I2 < 50%, it indicated heterogeneity in the risk factors between studies, and the random effect model was used for the meta-analysis. Otherwise, the fixed effect model was used.

In addition, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression analysis were conducted through R software. A sensitivity analysis was performed to ensure the stability of the results. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess heterogeneity; it can also be used to analyze the differences of categorical explanatory variables introduced in subgroup analysis. The dependent variable of meta-regression is the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL, and the research sample, research type, research population, area, time, research quality and questionnaire type are independent variables. The regression coefficient estimates how the intervention effects of each subgroup differ from the specified reference subgroup. The p value < 0.05 of each regression coefficient was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Characteristics of eligible studies on the relation between HL and QOL

Based on their titles and abstracts, 3274 articles met our criteria. After careful review, 23 studies [11,12,13, 16,17,18,19,20, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43] fulfilled our selection criteria for meta-analysis. The flow chart of this selection procedure is shown in Fig. 1

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection

Full size image

.

The included studies were published between 2005 and February 2018. The detailed information for review is described in Table 1. The design types of these studies included cohort studies and cross-sectional studies. A total of 13 studies were conducted between 1995 and 2015, but 10 studies had no survey time attributed to them. The study subjects were mainly college students, community residents and patients. They were mostly adults, and the majority of them were women. The instruments of measuring QOL were mainly the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) [44], the 12 item short form health questionnaire survey (SF-12), the 36 item short form health questionnaire survey (SF-36) [45] and other self-developed questionnaires, while the instruments of HL were mainly the Test of Functional Health literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) [46], the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) [47], the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NVS) [48], and self-developed questionnaires. The details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of the 23 publications included in the review
Full size table

Methodological quality

NOS was used to score 4 of the cohort studies, and 19 of the cross-sectional studies were scored using the AHRQ. Of the studies scored by NOS, the minimum score was 7, the maximum score was 9, and the average score was 8.5. Of the studies scored by AHRQ, the minimum score was 5, the maximum score was 9, and the average was 6.89 (Table 1).

The correlation between HL and QOL

General correlation

A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis of the correlation between HL and QOL, and the total sample size was 12,303. In the heterogeneity test: the correlation between HL and QOL (I2 = 97%, p < 0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity. The correlation coefficient between QOL and HL was 0. 35 (95% CI: 0.25–0.44) (Fig. 2)

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of the correlation between HL and QOL

Full size image

.

The correlation between HL and two dimensions of QOL

The QOL included physical and mental scores. A total of 8 studies were included in the analysis of the correlation between HL and physical QOL, and the total sample size was 5777. In the heterogeneity test, the correlation between HL and physical QOL (I2 = 94%, p<0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity, using a random effect model to combine effect quantity. The correlation coefficient between physical QOL and HL was 0. 20 (95% CI: 0.08–0.31) (Fig. 2).

In addition, a total of 7 studies were included in the analysis of the correlation between HL and mental QOL, and the total sample size was 5602. In the heterogeneity test, the correlation between HL and mental QOL (I2 = 95%, p<0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity, using a random effect model to combine effect quantity. The correlation coefficient between mental QOL and HL was 0. 18 (95% CI: 0.08–0.31).

The correlation between QOL and four dimensions of HL

HL incorporates health knowledge, health behavior, health belief and health skill. A total of 3 studies were included in the analysis of the correlation between QOL and four dimensions of HL, and the total sample size was 3256. In the heterogeneity test, the correlation between health knowledge of HL and QOL (I2 = 99%, p<0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity. The correlation coefficient between QOL and health knowledge was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.04–0.61). In the heterogeneity test, the correlation between health behavior of HL and QOL (I2 = 97%, P<0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity, using a random effect model to combine effect quantity. The correlation coefficient between QOL and health behavior was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.13–0.55). In the heterogeneity test, the correlation between health belief of HL and QOL (I2 = 98%, p<0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity. The correlation coefficient between QOL and health belief was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.10–0.62). In the heterogeneity test, the correlation between health skill of HL and QOL (I2 = 99%, p<0.001) showed that there was heterogeneity. The correlation coefficient between QOL and health skill was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.03–0.69).

Subgroup analysis

The subgroup analysis included population, time, study design, area, study quality and the kinds of HL instruments and QOL instruments used (Table 2). Noticeably, the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL was 0.46 (95%CI: 0.13, 0.69) among community residents, 0.45 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.61) in China, and 0.45 (95%CI: 0.24, 0.62) based on cohort study design. The correlation coefficient between HL and QOL on TOFHLA was higher than REALM.

Table 2 Subgroup analysis of the correlation between HL and QOL
Full size table

Publication bias

Funnel plot asymmetry was observed in the studies of correlation between HL and QOL (Fig. 3)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Funnel plot of the correlation between HL and QOL

Full size image

. Egger’s test (t = 1.197, p = 0.248) indicated that there was no obvious publication bias (Fig. 4)

Fig. 4
figure 4

Egger test

Full size image

.

Sensitivity and meta-regression analysis

Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the effect of each study on the pooled results by sequentially excluding single studies. It was found that the results had no significant change after excluding each study (Additional file 2: Table S2). Meta-regression analysis was used to detect heterogeneity (Table 3). The results showed that cohort study design, studies conducted in China and publication before 2012 may be important influencing factors.

Table 3 Meta regression on correlation coefficient
Full size table

Discussion

With the development of medical technology and the increase of life expectancy, people pay more attention to their QOL. Health managers and researchers are more concerned about whether improvements in health literacy increase people’s QOL. Song, S. [38] showed HL was not positively correlated with QOL, and the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL was only 0.07. However, Liu, L [19] showed that the correlation coefficient between HL and QOL among patients with coronary heart disease was 0.665. This study showed the HL had a moderate positive correlation with QOL (r = 0.35, p < 0.05) through meta-analysis, which is helpful for further research. It suggested that people with low HL may pay low attention to their health status and therefore they had unhealthy behavior habits that caused a decline of QOL [49]. This study also analyzes the interaction relations between dimensions of HL and dimensions of QOL. The correlation between HL and the two dimensions of QOL was lower than the total correlation coefficient of overall HL and QOL. The correlation between QOL and the four dimensions of HL was higher than the total correlation coefficient of overall HL and QOL, among which the correlation between health skills and QOL was highest. Health skill refers to the ability of individuals to transform health knowledge into healthy behaviors. It plays an intermediary role between health knowledge and health behavior. Good health skills improve health status and QOL. Mental health conditions closely related to the quality of the individual’s life will also improve health skills. Some studies divided the QOL into two dimensions [29, 34, 36], while other studies divided it into more than two dimensions [20, 50]. However, after HL and QOL were divided into different dimensions, fewer studies were included as they may not be general and reliable correlation coefficients.

In subgroup analysis, population, time, study design, study quality, area, and the type of HL instruments and QOL instruments were analyzed. Among the population subgroup, the college students’ correlation coefficient between HL and QOL was lower, it may be that the overall health literacy of college students is similar, but the difference in quality of life scores is more related to the psychological status of students such as anxiety and depression. In addition, the patients’ correlation coefficient was higher than that of the healthy population, indicating that patients who had higher health knowledge had relatively low requirements for QOL. In terms of study design, the cohort study’s correlation coefficient between HL and QOL was higher than cross-sectional study’s correlation due to the study design. In terms of region, the correlation coefficient of studies conducted in China was the highest, followed by American region and other regions of Asia. The reason may be that the sample size of China was 6083: higher than the United States (3452) and other parts of Asia (1142). For the instruments, TOFHLA for the HL questionnaire and the short form questionnaire for the QOL questionnaire were better than others. Similar to the result of subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis also showed that cohort study design, studies conducted in China, and publication before 2012 may be important influencing factors.

This study has some limitations. The first limitation is in the study design used. Mainly cross-sectional studies were included, which collected HL and QOL at the same time and never reflected on the long-term impact of lower HL on QOL. This is why the cohort study’s correlation coefficient between HL and QOL was higher than cross-sectional study’s correlation, and the insufficiency is that there are fewer studies included in the cohort study. The second limitation is with regard to the quality of the data collected. The data of studies included β and r and rank correlation r. Some studies [21, 31, 50, 51] showed that compared poor and medium HL with high HL showed that β was not the general value between HL and QOL. As a result, this part of the value was not included in the meta-analysis. The third limitation is with regard to the questionnaire used. The questionnaires for HL and QOL were not unified, which increased the heterogeneity of the meta-analysis and the subsequent possibility of bias in the results. Therefore, studies with larger sample sizes and better data quality are needed to further confirm the finding. In addition, the heterogeneity of the subjects, the different ages and health conditions are influencing factors on the results.

Conclusion

In summary, HL was moderately correlated with QOL, and the correlation coefficient between QOL and health knowledge, health behavior, health belief, and health skill were statistically significant. However, these findings need to be supported by more evidence.

Abbreviations

AHRQ:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

CI:

Confidence Interval

CNKI:

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

EQ-5D:

The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions

HL:

Health Literacy

MeSH:

Medical subject headings

NOS:

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

NVS:

The Newest Vital Sign

PCOR:

The pooled correlation coefficient

QOL:

Quality of Life

REALM:

The Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine

SF-12:

The 12-item Short Form

SF-36:

The 36-item Short Form

TOFHLA:

Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults

References

  1. Wang HM, Beyer M, Gensichen J, Gerlach FM. Health-related quality of life among general practice patients with differing chronic diseases in Germany: cross sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Miguel RS, Lopez-Gonzalez AM, Sanchez-Iriso E, Mar J, Cabases JM. Measuring health-related quality of life in drug clinical trials: is it given due importance? Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(2):154–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jiqian F, Chonghua W, Yuantao H, Mingli S, Fengqiong Z, Fengbin L. Research and application of health related quality of life. Statistics Forecasts. 2001;01:26–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sorensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sorensen K, Pelikan JM, Rothlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(6):1053–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Visscher KL, Hutnik CM. Reprint of: health literacy in Canada and the ophthalmology patient. Canadian journal of ophthalmology journal canadien d. Ophtalmologie. 2015;50(1):S40–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Adams RJ, Appleton SL, Hill CL, Dodd M, Findlay C, Wilson DH. Risks associated with low functional health literacy in an Australian population. Med J Aust. 2009;191(10):530–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mark K, Elizabeth G, Ying J, al e. The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of adult literacy. Washington: National Center for education. Statistics. 2006;39(10):685–87.

  9. Hongwen Y, Qi S, Yinghua L. Present situation and countermeasure of health literacy of urban and rural residents in China. Popul Stud. 2016;02:88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Montbleau KE, King D, Henault L, Magnani JW. Health literacy, health-related quality of life, and atrial fbrillation. Cogent Med. 2017;4:1412121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Naimi AJ, Naderiravesh N, Bayat ZS, Shakeri N, Matbouei M. Correlation between health literacy and health-related quality of life in patients with hypertension, in Tehran, Iran, 2015-2016. Electron Physician. 2017;9(11):5712–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ownby RL, Acevedo A, Jacobs RJ, Caballero J, Waldrop-Valverde D. Quality of life, health status, and health service utilization related to a new measure of health literacy: FLIGHT/VIDAS. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(3):404–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang C, Lang J, Xuan L, Li X, Zhang L. The effect of health literacy and self-management efficacy on the health-related quality of life of hypertensive patients in a western rural area of China: a cross-sectional study. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yehle KS, Plake KS, Nguyen P, Smith D. Health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with varying levels of health literacy receiving telemedicine and standardized education. Home Healthc Now. 2016;34(5):267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shi D, Li J, Wang Y, Wang S, Liu K, Shi R, et al. Association between health literacy and hypertension management in a Chinese community: a retrospective cohort study. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12(6):765–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee EH, Lee YW, Moon SH. A structural equation model linking health literacy to self-efficacy, self-care activities, and health-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. Asian Nurs Res. 2016;10(1):82–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo C. Study on the current situation and influencing factors of health literacy of some college students in Guangzhou [D]. Shandong: Jinan University; 2013.

  18. Wang N. The influence of self-efficacy on health literacy and quality of life of the elderly in community [D]. Hunan: Nanhua University; 2012.

  19. Liu L. Study on the correlation between health literacy and quality of life and direct medical cost of middle-aged and elderly inpatients with coronary[D]. Xinjiang Medical University; 2016.

  20. Husson O, Mols F, Fransen MP, van de Poll-Franse LV, Ezendam NPM. Low subjective health literacy is associated with adverse health behaviors and worse health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors: results from the profiles registry. Psycho-Oncology. 2015;24(4):478–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Curtis LM, Wolf MS, Weiss KB, Grammer LC. The impact of health literacy and socioeconomic status on asthma disparities. J Asthma. 2012;49(2):178–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jayasinghe UW, Harris MF, Parker SM, Litt J, van Driel M, Mazza D, et al. The impact of health literacy and life style risk factors on health-related quality of life of Australian patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Grp P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;18(3):e123.

  24. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  25. DM, D, GG, S, DM, D, al, e. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cacciamani GE, Medina LG, Gill T, Abreu A, Sotelo R, Artibani W, et al. Impact of surgical factors on robotic partial nephrectomy outcomes: comprehensive systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Urol. 2018;200(2):258–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dougherty DM, Shapiro GG, Dougherty DM, Shapiro GG, editors. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. International conference of the IEEE engineering in Medicine & Biology Society; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Juming D. Research on data conversion method in Meta analysis[D]. Guangdong: Southern medical university; 2014.

  29. Al Sayah F, Qiu W, Johnson JA. Health literacy and health-related quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1487–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Macabasco-O'Connell A, DeWalt DA, Broucksou KA, Hawk V, Baker DW, Schillinger D, et al. Relationship between literacy, knowledge, self-care behaviors, and heart failure-related quality of life among patients with heart failure. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(9):979–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang C, Kane RL, Xu D, Meng Q. Health literacy as a moderator of health-related quality of life responses to chronic disease among Chinese rural women. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Son YJ, Yu HY. Influence of health literacy on HRQoL in patients after PCI. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38(12):1611–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mancuso CA, Rincon M. Impact of health literacy on longitudinal asthma outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):813–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Couture EM, Chouinard M-C, Fortin M, Hudon C. The relationship between health literacy and quality of life among frequent users of health care services: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Halverson JL, Martinez-Donate AP, Palta M, Leal T, Lubner S, Walsh MC, et al. Health literacy and health-related quality of life among a population-based sample of Cancer patients. J Health Commun. 2015;20(11):1320–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnston MV, Diab ME, Kim SS, Kirshblum S. Health literacy, morbidity, and quality of life among individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2005;28(3):230–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rocha PC, Rocha DC, Lemos SMA. Functional health literacy and quality of life of high-school adolescents in state schools in Belo Horizonte. CoDAS. 2017;29(4):e20160208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Song S, Lee SM, Jang S, Lee YJ, Kim NH, Sohn HR, et al. Mediation effects of medication information processing and adherence on association between health literacy and quality of. Life. 2017;17(1):661.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wallace LS, Rogers ES, Weiss BD. Relationship between health literacy and health-related quality of life among Tennesseans. Tenn Med. 2008;101(5):35–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhang XH, Li SC, Fong KY, Thumboo J. The impact of health literacy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility assessment among patients with rheumatic diseases. Value Health. 2009;12:S106–S9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duan W. Investigation and analysis of health literacy status of college students in Kunming city [D]. Yunnan: Yunnan University; 2015.

  42. Lv Q. Study on the relationship between health literacy, drug treatment compliance and quality of life of elderly hypertension patients in yanbian han nationality. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zhao Y, Gao L. Logistic regression analysis of health literacy of empty-nesters in community on influencing factors of quality of life. Chinese Foreign Med Res. 2012;10(15):57–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Optum Inc. 2018. Available from: https://campaign.optum.com/content/optum/en/optum-outcomes/what-we-do/health-surveys.html.

  46. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(10):537–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Long SW, Jackson RH, Bates P, George RB, et al. Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients. Fam Med. 1991;23(6):433–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, Castro KM, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):514–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Panagioti M, Skevington SM, Hann M, Howells K, Blakemore A, Reeves D, et al. Effect of health literacy on the quality of life of older patients with long-term conditions: a large cohort study in UK general practice. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1257–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Song L, Mishel M, Bensen JT, Chen RC, Knafl GJ, Blackard B, et al. How does health literacy affect quality of life among men with newly diagnosed clinically localized prostate cancer? Cancer. 2012;118(15):3842–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to like to thank School of Public Health, of Southeast University and Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention for providing resources and support.

Funding

This study was supported in part by Chinese National Natural Fund (81573258) and by the Social Development Fund of Jiangsu Province (SBE2017710 and SBE2015714).

Availability of data and materials

EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Elsevier, Cochrane Library, and Chinese electronic databases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China

    Mengyun Zheng, Hui Jin, Naiyang Shi, Chunxiao Duan, Donglei Wang & Xiaoge Yu

  2. Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China

    Mengyun Zheng & Hui Jin

  3. Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, 210009, China

    Xiaoning Li

Authors
  1. Mengyun Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naiyang Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chunxiao Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Donglei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaoge Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaoning Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MZ participated in the data analysis and drafted the manuscript. HJ participated in the conception and design of the study. All authors contributed to interpretation of findings and approving the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Jin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional files

Additional file 1:

Table S1. PRISMA checklist. (DOC 61 kb)

Additional file 2:

Table S2. Sensitivity analysis of Meta. (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, M., Jin, H., Shi, N. et al. The relationship between health literacy and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 16, 201 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1031-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1031-7

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us