Multi-staged development and pilot testing of a self-assessment tool for organizational health literacy

Until now a comprehensive, consensus-based tool that can be used by a variety of health care organizations for assessing their organizational health literacy (OHL) is not available. Therefore, we aimed to develop and test a literature- and consensus-based self-assessment tool.

The study is based on a scoping review that was previously published by the authors. For the development of the self-assessment tool, the criteria identified in the literature were synthesized with criteria gained through group discussions with representatives of different types of health care organizations (N = 27) all based in Hamburg (Germany). Consensus on the criteria was reached by conducting a Delphi process (N = 22). A review by the project's patient advisory council was included in the process. The self-assessment tool was converted into an online tool and refined by a pretest. Finally, the online survey was piloted (N = 53) and the reliability and item loadings for each scale were analyzed.

In total, 77 criteria (items) characterizing a health literate health care organization were developed and grouped into five main categories (scales): (1) "easy access and navigation", (2) "integration, prioritization, and dissemination of OHL", (3) "qualification, quality management, evaluation, and needs assessment", (4) "communication with target groups", and (5) "involvement and support of target groups". The results of the online survey showed that the tool is suitable for assessing an organization's status quo on OHL. The psychometric analysis showed good to excellent internal consistency. Item analyses of the developed self-assessment tool was satisfactory.

We were able to define a set of 77 items to characterize OHL, which were integrated into a new, comprehensive, and consensus-based self-assessment tool to identify areas for improvement. We found evidence that the self-assessment tool, based on the identified criteria, consists of the assumed five scales. Further research should analyze the validity of the self-assessment tool on a higher detail level.