Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.0
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.3)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Ahead of print

doi: 10.17219/acem/162538

Publication type: meta-analysis

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Yan L, Pu C, Rastogi S, Choudhury R, Shekar MK, Talukdar G. Evaluating the influence of health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors on the spread of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis [published online as ahead of print on May 11, 2023]. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2023. doi:10.17219/acem/162538

Evaluating the influence of health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors on the spread of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis

Lulu Yan1,A, Chunmei Pu2,B, Sanjay Rastogi3,D,E,F, Rupshikha Choudhury4,E,F, Magesh Kumar Shekar5,C,E, Gitartha Talukdar6,E,F

1 Department of Nursing and Health, Lingnan Institute of Technology, Guangzhou, China

2 Department of Gastroenterology, The General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, China

3 Faculty of Surgical Sciences, Boston University, USA

4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Regional Dental College, Guwahati, India

5 Department of Periodontology, Index Institute of Dental Sciences, Indore, India

6 private practice, Guwahati, India

Graphical abstract


Graphical abstracts

Abstract

Background. Health literacy and self-efficacy related to COVID-19 pandemic management are closely linked. There­fore, synthesis of relevant evidence regarding the positive aspects of health literacy and health-promoting protective measures among individuals during COVID-19 pandemic is necessary.

Objectives. To determine the influence of e-health literacy and health-promoting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) protective behaviors on the spread of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as PROSPERO and ClinicalTrials.gov registry platforms were searched for eligible literature published from January 2020 to July 2022. Studies were included based on predefined Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design (PICOS) criteria, and a summary of each study was prepared. To estimate the effect size, the standardized mean difference (SMD) of the evaluated parameters, e-health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors was extracted. Using RevMan and MedCalc software, a meta-analysis was performed.

Results. Twelve eligible studies involving a total of 9854 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected individuals were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled SMD for e-health literacy was 40.39 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 28.14–52.63), with the following heterogeneity values: Tau2 of 396.80, χ2 of 669.48, degrees of freedom (df) of 11, I2 of 98%, Z value of 6.47, and p < 0.001. Similarly, the pooled SM for COVID-19 protective behaviors was 15.90 (95% CI: 10.96–20.84) with Tau2 of 55.25, χ2 of 252.92, df of 11, I2 of 98%, Z of 6.31, and p < 0.001.

Conclusions. This study confirmed that e-health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors have a strong positive impact on preventing the spread of COVID-19 infection and on its effective management. We recommend that interventions and applicable policies for promoting such e-literacy programs and preventative measures be given a high level of consideration.

Key words: e-health literacy, COVID-19, pandemic, COVID-19 protective behaviors, health-related behavior

Introduction

The nearly 3-year-long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on societies throughout the world. Globally, approx. 609 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and approx. 6.5 million deaths have been reported as of September 2022.1 The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted primarily through the respiratory droplets of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients or a direct contact with asymptomatic individuals.2, 3 Based on the reported evidence, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued national guidelines in numerous countries recommending the implementation of COVID-19 protective behaviors for droplet and contact precautions.4, 5 These preventative actions were suggested for the effective suppression of virus transmission and flattening of the COVID-19 pandemic curve. Health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors or preventative measures include maintaining an appropriate physical distance, regularly washing hands to ensure proper hand hygiene and wearing a face mask to prevent virus entry through nasal routes. These protective measures are highly effective at preventing viral transmission and infection spread.6, 7 Although the COVID-19 vaccine is readily available, it is necessary to engage in these precautionary measures after vaccination to enhance its efficacy.8, 9

Health-related education or health literacy is required to comprehend the significance of COVID-19 protective behaviors in the prevention and effective management of SARS-CoV-2 infections, as well as how and when to implement them. Health literacy familiarizes an individual with medical terms and enables them to comprehend drug prescriptions, usage instructions and doctor’s instructions for the prevention of health problems and better management when the need arises. It allows a person to assess the risks and benefits of a drug, and to navigate the complexities of the healthcare system.10 Health literacy is termed e-health literacy when it is acquired through the use of various electronic sources such as the Internet, television and social media applications.11

According to numerous studies, individuals with high e-health literacy are able to manage their health concerns in a better way and effectively implement COVID-19 protective behaviors. In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Li et al. reported that the preventive behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and compliance with the security regulations play a significant role in fighting COVID-19 pandemic.12 Liang et al. also noted that precautionary behaviors are highly effective and advantageous in the effective management of the pandemic.13 In their research on digital health literacy and online information-seeking behaviors among students during the COVID-19 pandemic, Htay et al. concluded that digital health literacy and online information play an essential role in the management and prevention of COVID-19.14 In their cross-sectional studies, Riiser et al.15 and Pechrapa et al.16 concluded that health literacy and the implementation of health-promoting COVID-19 protective measures are very effective in coping with the pandemic.

Posai et al. evaluated the health-promoting behaviors of hospitalized patients with non-communicable diseases during the 2nd wave of COVID-19 and reported the role of such behaviors in preventing the infection and its spread among patients.17 Likewise, many researchers conducted cross-sectional studies assessing the influence between e-health literacy and self-efficacy levels on implementing COVID-19 protective behaviors in individuals from different age groups during the pandemic.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 They confirmed the positive impact of effective disease management on preventing the infection.

Objectives

In light of the significance of these parameters, the purpose of the present meta-analysis was to synthesize the relevant evidence regarding the positive results of health literacy and health-promoting protective measures among individuals from various age groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the influence of these variables on the spread of infection and the social and cultural behavior of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic was evaluated.

Materials and methods

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

This study included articles published between January 2020 and July 2022 that describe the impact of health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors on individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Only full-text articles were included, and studies with insufficient data or unrelated to the effect of health literacy and COVID-19 protective behaviors on individuals were excluded.

Information sources

This meta-analysis is based on a comprehensive search based on PRISMA guidelines using, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as PROSPERO and ClinicalTrials.gov registry platforms, conducted from January 2020 to July 2022.

Search strategy

The following terms were used to search for relevant studies: “COVID-19”, “coronavirus infection”, “pandemic”, “health literacy”, “COVID protective behavior”, “meta-analysis”, and “health-related behavior”. Regardless of language, publication status or study type, all included articles were chosen in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies were chosen randomly based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design (PICOS) criteria (prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, or observational study). The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of health literacy on individuals and RCTs that evaluated the effect of health-promoting behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic; 2) standardized mean differences (SMDs) in COVID-19 management behaviors between a study group and a control group regarding the basis of their health literacy and implication of health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors were assessed as the primary outcome. Exclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials with patients already affected by COVID-19 and follow-up periods of less than a month. From the included studies, a concise study summary and event data were extracted.

Selection process

Two authors (LY and CP) independently searched the appropriate sources for related studies. The primary focus was on the full-text articles; abstracts were only used if they contained adequate information for the meta-analysis. Outdated references were removed, and in their place, relevant research was incorporated as required by the inclusion criteria. In addition, 2 researchers (SR and RC) collected event data containing important variables independently from each study.

Data collection process

The methodological validity of the included research was independently assessed by 2 authors (LY and CP). Moreover, they evaluated the heterogeneity of the included experiments. One author (MKS) was responsible for resolving any difference of opinion between the other authors (LY and CP). With the assistance of RevMan software 5 (https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/ core-software/revman/revman-5-download), we were able to calculate Deek’s funnel plot, the Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2 index in random bivariate mode to assess the heterogeneity.

The source of heterogeneity

The use of full-text publications as opposed to abstracts was investigated for heterogeneity. Other sources of heterogeneity included differences in the age of patients, number of patients, types of scales used to evaluate infections, and results of the studies.

Risk of bias assessment

The assessment of the potential for bias in the included studies was carried out, and the accompanying risk of bias summary and risk of bias graph were performed using the RevMan software 5.27

Statistical analyses

To evaluate the impact of preventive practices and health literacy among people of varying ages on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean scores of preventive behaviors and health literacy were taken along with their standard deviations (SDs), and the SMD and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. The mean preventive practice score was calculated for the important preventive behaviors, such as using a tissue to cover one’s nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing, disposing of used tissues in the trash, not touching one’s eyes, nose or mouth with unwashed hands, and washing one’s hands with soap and water as soon as possible after engaging in any of the aforementioned activities. The SMD of the parameters expressing health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors, as well as their respective 95% CIs, were calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel method28 with random bivariate effects utilizing RevMan software 5 along with their respective forest plots. This was done in conjunction with the parameters’ respective forest plots. The Tau2, χ2, I2, and Z values were utilized in an analysis to determine the degree of heterogeneity present in the included studies. If the p-value was less than 0.05, the study was regarded as statistically significant. The RevMan software 5 was used to perform the meta-analysis. Publication bias in the included studies was analyzed using Begg’s and Egger’s tests,29 and a funnel plot was generated using MedCalc software v. 20.218 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium) by graphing the proportion of each study against its standard error (SE).30 Using MedCalc software, the Bland–Altman plot31 was prepared to examine the level of agreement between the RCTs on health literacy and COVID-19 protective behaviors, and a box and whisker plot32 was utilized to compare the 2 parameters’ respective levels of effectiveness.

Results

Results of a literature search

According to the PICOS criteria33 listed in Table 1, we identified a total of 1237 studies through electronic searches of various databases. We removed 242 studies as they did not pertain to the topic of interest, leaving 995 entries to be examined. In addition, erroneous references and duplications led to the exclusion of 724 papers, leaving only 271 for final screening. Out of the 271 studies, 215 were removed based on the inclusion criteria, and the eligibility of the remaining 56 studies was further evaluated. Insufficient evidence and improper comparison criteria to create 2×2 tables for review were the primary reasons for the omission. Figure 1 depicts the study flowchart according to the PRISMA recommendations. Twelve publications that met the inclusion criteria, i.e., were relevant to the issue and supplied sufficient data to produce a 2×2 table, were used in the meta-analysis. The twelve included trials, published from 2020 to 2022, included a total of 9854 participants of various ages during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the effects of health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors on these individuals were compared. Individuals were assigned to the interventions at random, and the influence of these factors on the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 infections and its successful management were examined and analyzed statistically.

Table 2 provides a concise description of the studies included in this meta-analysis. It contains the study’s first author, year of publication, journal of publication, type of study, age of the patients, the purpose of the study, male/female (M/F) ratio, sample size, study location, evaluation scale, intervention results, study conclusion, and p-values indicating statistical significance of the data.

Risk of bias assessment

The assessment of the risk of bias for the included studies is provided in Table 3. The RevMan 5 software was used to conduct the risk of bias analysis, and we determined that the risk of bias was low, as evidenced by the risk of bias summary in Figure 2 and the risk of bias graph in Figure 3.

Meta-analysis outcomes

Using RevMan 5 software, the meta-analysis was completed. The publication bias was evaluated with MedCalc software v. 20.218. As indicated by the funnel plot (Figure 4) and the outcomes of Egger’s and Begg and Mazumdar tests, the publication bias risk in the current meta-analysis was low. Egger’s regression test reveals the degree of asymmetry of a funnel plot by calculating the intercept of the standard normal regression against the precision. While Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test explains the relationship between the ranks of effect sizes and their variances, the Pearson’s rank correlation test does not. The data were considered statistically significant and at low risk of publication bias for p < 0.05. Since the significance threshold or p-value for both statistical tests in our meta-analysis was less than 0.05, i.e., 0.017 for Egger’s test and 0.045 for Begg’s test, this verifies the minimal likelihood of publication bias.35

The pooled SMD for health literacy (Figure 5) was 40.39 (95% CI: 28.14–52.63), with following heterogeneity values: Tau2 of 396.80, χ2 of 669.48, degrees of freedom (df) of 11, I2 of 98%, Z value of 6.47, and p < 0.001. Similarly, the pooled SMD for COVID-19 protective behaviors (Figure 6) was 15.90 (95% CI: 10.96–20.84) with Tau2 of 55.25, χ2 of 252.92, df of 11, I2 of 98%, Z of 6.31, and p < 0.001. A high SMD, greater than 1, for both examined parameters suggests that these factors are likely to have a favorable impact on the prevention and management of COVID-19.36 Both of these criteria have comparable and substantial effects on the prevention and management of COVID-19, as visible from the size of the boxes and the wide ranges and variability of the whiskers in Figure 7.37 The results of all the included studies are in strong alignment, as evident from the Bland–Altman plot shown in Figure 8. In the Bland–Altman plot, 95% of the data points were lying within ±2 s of the value of the mean differences.38

Taking into account all of these statistically significant meta-analysis results (p < 0.05), this study demonstrates that both health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors contribute significantly to the proper management and prevention of spreading COVID-19 infections.

Discussion

The goal of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of health literacy and the application of COVID-19 preventative practices among individuals of various age. The recommended preventive behaviors are hand hygiene, the use of a face mask and keeping an appropriate physical distance, in addition to protective measures such as cough covering, house disinfection and daily vitamin C supplementation.39, 40, 41 For keeping the necessary physical distance, individuals are advised to stay at home, avoid large gatherings and crowded areas, and avoid all personal contact with others, particularly sick individuals.42, 43 Hand hygiene refers to the correct washing of hands with an alcohol-based hand rub, soap and water for a predetermined amount of time in order to remove any viruses that may have been contracted.44, 45 Health literacy is required to understand the advantages of these preventive and protective measures and their effect on health. Health literacy enables an individual to locate, comprehend and assess the value of recommended healthcare information and preventative measures in order to make informed decisions regarding their health and welfare.46, 47 In their cross-sectional study, Duong et al. found that e-health literacy helped in overcoming the dread, stress and despair brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.48 Similarly, Seng et al. highlighted in their review study that health literacy has a significant impact on the ability to receive and absorb vital medical information during the COVID-19 pandemic.49 In their comprehensive review and meta-analysis, Barry et al. found that e-health literacy and the understanding of COVID-19 have a significant impact on the health management of emergency department patients.50 Similarly, Do et al. showed the positive results of health literacy and health-related behaviors in the management of COVID-19 symptoms during the worldwide pandemic with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.08 (95% CI: 1.04–1.13) and p < 0.001.51

In the present meta-analysis, we also investigated the influence of health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. We achieved statistically significant results with p < 0.05 and pooled SMD of 40.39 (95% CI: 28.14–52.63) for health literacy and 15.90 (95% CI: 10.96–20.84) for COVID-19 protective behaviors. Based on these findings, we urge that interventions and related policies encouraging these health literacy programs and preventative measures be given top priority.

Limitations

The present study is limited by the fact that only English-language papers were considered, which may have resulted in a selection bias. In addition, the examination of parameters using different scales also influences outcomes to a degree. For a clearer evaluation of the effects of these parameters, it is also possible to include data from other relevant studies that mention proper documentation regarding the patient’s case history, clinical issues during drug administration, post-administration side effects, and associated complications. Similarly, only e-health literacy and health-promoting protective behaviors were examined as predictors of success; however, additional criteria such as the impact of various drugs and other social or psychological problems can be added to improve the results.

Conclusions

Health literacy and health-promoting COVID-19 protective behaviors have substantial favorable effects on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding and implementing these guidelines contributes significantly to the prevention of virus transmission and its effective management, regardless of age or gender. Individuals with a higher level of health literacy were more likely to adhere to recommended preventive measures and sustain healthier behaviors, such as healthy diet, physical activity and timely administering medications. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-depth understanding of health-related issues considerably increased social and cultural wellbeing, and reduced the incidence of anxiety and sadness. Based on its statistically significant results (p < 0.05), the present meta-analysis shows that health literacy as an essential ability that must be acquired by all individuals, and the recommended preventive behaviors must be adopted if the COVID-19 pandemic is to be handled properly.

Tables


Table 1. PICOS search

P (patient, problem, population)

individuals from different age groups during COVID-19 pandemic

I (intervention)

evaluation of the impact of health literacy and health protective measures on persons from different age groups during COVID-19 pandemic

C (comparison, control or comparator)

The impact of health literacy and COVID-19 protective behaviors on the individuals from varied age groups during COVID-19 pandemic was assessed on the basis of eHEALS, HELIA scores, PBarS, HPBS, and SSS.

O (outcome/outcomes)

There is a strong correlation between health literacy and COVID-19 protective behaviors. Both factors have a strong positive impact on the prevention and management of COVID-19. E-health literacy provides better access to beneficial healthcare services, preventive material and health information. Likewise, protective behavior helps in the effective management of COVID-19 infection.

S (study type)

cross-sectional studies, randomized controlled trials, observational studies

COVID-19 – coronavirus disease 2019; eHEALS – eHealth Literacy Scale; HELIA – Health Literacy Instrument for Adults; PBarS – Perceived Barrier Scale; HPBS – Health-Promoting Behaviors Scale; SSS – Social Support Scale
Table 2. Brief summary of the included studies

Study ID and year

Journal

Type of study

Sample size

Country

Aim of the study

Evaluation scale

Age of the patients [years]

Gender M/F

Results

Conclusions

p-value

health literacy

COVID-19 protective behaviors

Riiser et al., 202015

PLoS One

cross-sectional study

2205

Iran

importance of health literacy and health protective measures among adolescents during COVID-19 pandemic

HLSAC scale

16–19

1819/379

14.1 ±1.6

11.9 ±2.6

A positive correlation exists between health literacy and protective measures among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

<0.05

Pechrapa et al., 202116

Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research

cross-sectional study

421

Thailand

importance of health literacy among older adults during COVID-19 pandemic

5-point Likert scale

60–80

157/264

2.53 ±1.47

2.62 ±1.66

Health literacy is important among older adults in order for them to have good access to healthcare services, preventive material and health information.

<0.001

Posai et al., 202117

Journal of Multidis­ciplinary Healthcare

cross-sectional study

250

Thailand (Bangkok)

evaluation of the health-promoting behaviors of

hospitalized patients with non-communicable

diseases during the 2nd wave of COVID-19

PBarS, HPBS, SSS

>18

105/145

106.09 ±4.66

16.64 ±1.34

Health literacy and health-promoting behaviors are beneficial for preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 spread.

<0.001

Pourfridoni et al., 202218

Brain and Behavior

observational study

278

Iran

evaluation of health literacy and fear among patients with COVID-19

HELIA scores

18–30

86/192

128.83 ±18.1

43.78 ±8.56

There is a significant negative association between health literacy and fear of COVID-19 among medical students.

<0.001

Suksatan et al., 202119

Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research

cross-sectional study

415

Thailand

association between health literacy, self-care behavior and blood sugar level among older patients during COVID-19 pandemic

HLS, BSCA

50–80

139/276

2.68 ±0.64

4.0 ±0.33

Increased health literacy in patients with diabetes would improve self-care behavior and, consequently, decrease their blood sugar level.

<0.001

Zahirian Moghadam et al., 202220

Frontiers in Public Health

cross-sectional study

380

Iran

to identify the role of e-health literacy and other cognitive factors for developing protective behaviors among COVID-19 patients

eHEALS

20–50

139/244

14.95 ±7.68

5.40 ±3.33

People with high socioeconomic levels had better e-health literacy and COVID-19 protective behaviors.

<0.05

Nakayama et al., 202221

JMIR Forma­tive Research

cross-sectional study

3914

Japan

evaluation of effects of COVID-19 protective behaviors and e-health literacy on Japanese adults

HLS

20–69

1953/1961

27.4 ±9.4

4.1 ±1.2

Comprehensive health literacy is necessary for COVID-19 preventive behaviors and making appropriate decisions.

<0.001

Polat and Karasu, 202222

Political Research Quarterly

randomized controlled experimental study

140

Turkey

effect of health promotion training provided to adults on healthy lifestyle behaviors

Health Lifestyle Behavioral Scale-I34

>65

80/60

136.17 ±19.60

107.22 ±21.09

Healthy lifestyle behaviors of elderly individuals improved because of the health promotion training.

<0.001

Tesfa et al., 202223

JMIR Forma­tive Research

cross-sectional study

383

Ethiopia

evaluation of effects of COVID-19 protective behaviors and e-health literacy among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

eHEALS

20–30

239/144

29.21 ±7.08

3.70 ±1.4

COVID-19 protective behaviors and e-health literacy among health professionals help them to take all the preventive measures and minimize the risk of COVID-19 spread.

<0.05

Wang et al., 202224

International Journal of En­vironmental Research and Public Research

cross-sectional study

425

China

association of e-health literacy with health-promotiong behaviors among older people

eHEALS, GSE

>60

213/212

16.54 ±4.17

60.34 ±6.9

E-health literacy and health promotion behaviors play vital role in self-efficacy and self-care ability; there is a positive correlation between both factors among older adults.

<0.01

Yusefi et al., 202225

BMC Women’s Health

cross-sectional study

465

Iran

role of health literacy and health-promotiong behaviors among inpatient women

during the COVID-19 pandemic

HELIA scores

20–50

465 females

64.41 ±11.31

112.23 ±16.09

Educational planning helps promote health literacy and supports health-promoting behaviors among women in order for them to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

<0.001

Sögüt et al., 202226

Journal of Nursing Research

cross-sectional study

578

Turkey

assessment of relationship between e-health literacy

and self-efficacy levels in midwifery students

during the

COVID-19 pandemic

eHEALS, OTSES

<20

578 females

28.44 ±7.13

11.82 ±3.04

E-health literacy and the use of online technologies during midwifery education curriculum enable the midwives to increase the quality of healthcare and improve patient safety.

<0.05

COVID-19 – coronavirus disease 2019; HLSAC – Health Literacy in School-Aged Children; PBarS – Perceived Barrier Scale; HPBS – Health-Promoting Behaviors Scale; SSS – Social Support Scale; HELIA – Health Literacy Instrument for Adults; HLS – Health Literacy Scale; BSCA – blood sugar control assessment; eHEALS – eHealth Literacy Scale; GSE – General Self-Efficacy Scale; OTSES – Online Technologies Self-Efficacy Scale; SARS-CoV-2 – severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Table 3. Risk assessment for included studies

Study ID and year

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Did all patients receive the same reference standard?

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?

Were the study participants sampled in an appropriate way?

Were the study participants and the setting described in detail?

Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?

Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?

Was there appropriate statistical analysis performed?

Riiser et al., 202015

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Pechrapa et al., 202116

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Posai et al., 202117

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Pourfridoni et al., 202218

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Suksatan et al., 202119

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Zahirian Moghadam et al., 202220

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Nakayama et al., 202221

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Polat and Karasu, 202222

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Tesfa et al., 202223

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Wang et al., 202224

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Yusefi et al., 202225

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Sögüt et al., 202226

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Figures


Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for the included studies
COVID-19 – coronavirus disease 2019.
Fig. 2. Risk of bias summary
Fig. 3. Risk of bias graph
Fig. 4. Funnel plot for publication bias
95% CI – 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 5. Forest plot standardized mean difference (SMD) for health literacy
95% CI – 95% confidence interval; SE – standard error; df – degrees of freedom.
Fig. 6. Forest plot standardized mean difference (SMD) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) protective behaviors
95% CI – 95% confidence interval; SE – standard error; df – degrees of freedom.
Fig. 7. Box and whisker plot showing effects of health literacy and protective behaviors on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention and management
Fig. 8. Bland–Altman agreement analysis

References (51)

  1. Rauf A, Abu-Izneid T, Olatunde A, et al. COVID-19 pandemic: Epidemiology, etiology, conventional and non-conventional therapies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8155. doi:10.3390/ijerph17218155
  2. Lotfi M, Hamblin MR, Rezaei N. COVID-19: Transmission, prevention, and potential therapeutic opportunities. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;508:254–266. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2020.05.044
  3. Salian VS, Wright JA, Vedell PT, et al. COVID-19 transmission, current treatment, and future therapeutic strategies. Mol Pharm. 2021;18(3):754–771. doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.0c00608
  4. Bai C, Chotirmall SH, Rello J, et al. Updated guidance on the management of COVID-19: From an American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society coordinated International Task Force (29 July 2020). Eur Respir Rev. 2020;29(157):200287. doi:10.1183/16000617.0287-2020
  5. Lamontagne F, Agarwal A, Rochwerg B, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19 [Update in BMJ. 2020;371:m4475. Update in BMJ. 2021;372:n860. Update in BMJ. 2021;374:n1703. Update in BMJ. 2021;374:n2219. Published correction appears in BMJ. 2022;377:o1045]. BMJ. 2020;370:m3379. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3379
  6. Beca-Martínez MT, Romay-Barja M, Falcón-Romero M, Rodríguez-Blázquez C, Benito-Llanes A, Forjaz MJ. Compliance with the main preventive measures of COVID-19 in Spain: The role of knowledge, attitudes, practices, and risk perception. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69(4):e871–e882. doi:10.1111/tbed.14364
  7. Lahiri A, Jha S, Bhattacharya S, Ray S, Chakraborty A. Effectiveness of preventive measures against COVID-19: A systematic review of in silico modeling studies in Indian context. Indian J Public Health. 2020;64(6):156. doi:10.4103/ijph.IJPH_464_20
  8. Nazzal Z, Maraqa B, Banat L, Kittaneh M, Maa’li Y, Al-Shobaki S. The practice of COVID-19 preventive measures in Palestine on the limits of vaccine provision: A population-based study. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2022;16(1):81–89. doi:10.3855/jidc.15013
  9. Pettit R, Peng B, Yu P, et al. Optimized post-vaccination strategies and preventative measures for SARS-CoV-2 [published as a preprint on September 21, 2021]. Laurel Hollow, USA: medRxiv; 2021. doi:10.1101/2021.09.17.21263723
  10. Rowlands G. Health literacy: Ways to maximise the impact and effectiveness of vaccination information. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(7):2130–2135. doi:10.4161/hv.29603
  11. Liu C, Wang D, Liu C, et al. What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Fam Med Com Health. 2020;8(2):e000351. doi:10.1136/fmch-2020-000351
  12. Li F, Liang W, Rhodes RE, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the preventive behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic among children and adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1201. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13585-z
  13. Liang W, Duan Y, Li F, et al. Psychosocial determinants of hand hygiene, facemask wearing, and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med. 2022;56(11):1174–1187. doi:10.1093/abm/kaac049
  14. Htay MNN, Parial LL, Tolabing MaC, et al. Digital health literacy, online information-seeking behaviour, and satisfaction of Covid-19 information among the university students of East and South-East Asia. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0266276. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266276
  15. Riiser K, Helseth S, Haraldstad K, Torbjørnsen A, Richardsen KR. Adolescents’ health literacy, health protective measures, and health-related quality of life during the Covid-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0238161. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238161
  16. Pechrapa K, Yodmai K, Kittipichai W, Charupoonpol P, Suksatan W. Health literacy among older adults during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in an urban community in Thailand. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2021;25(4):309–317. doi:10.4235/agmr.21.0090
  17. Posai V, Suksatan W, Choompunuch B, Koontalay A, Ounprasertsuk J, Sadang JM. Assessment of the health-promoting behaviors of hospitalized patients with non-communicable diseases during the second wave of COVID-19 [published correction appears in J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:2605–2606]. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:2185–2194. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S329344
  18. Pourfridoni M, Khan MA, Daneshi S, Vazirinasab H, Nosrati Z, Daneshi-Maskooni M. Health literacy and fear among Iranian medical students due to COVID-19: An observational study. Brain Behav. 2022;12(5):e2586. doi:10.1002/brb3.2586
  19. Suksatan W, Choompunuch B, Koontalay A, Posai V, Abusafia AH. Predictors of health behaviors among undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional predictive study. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:727–734. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S306718
  20. Zahirian Moghadam T, Zandian H, Shirin Bonyad H. Utilization of elderly health promotion services during COVID 19 in Iran: A cross-sectional study. J Edu Health Promot. 2022;11(1):297. doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_1315_21
  21. Nakayama K, Yonekura Y, Danya H, Hagiwara K. COVID-19 preventive behaviors and health literacy, information evaluation, and decision-making skills in Japanese adults: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(1):e34966. doi:10.2196/34966
  22. Polat F, Karasu F. The effect of health promotion training provided to elderly individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic on healthy lifestyle behaviors. Glob Health Promot. 2022;29(3):129–139. doi:10.1177/17579759221095078
  23. Tesfa GA, Yehualashet DE, Ewune HA, Zemeskel AG, Kalayou MH, Seboka BT. eHealth literacy and its associated factors among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-limited settings: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(7):e36206. doi:10.2196/36206
  24. Wang Y, Song Y, Zhu Y, Ji H, Wang A. Association of eHealth literacy with health promotion behaviors of community-dwelling older people: The chain mediating role of self-efficacy and self-care ability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(10):6092. doi:10.3390/ijerph19106092
  25. Yusefi AR, Barfar E, Daneshi S, Bayati M, Mehralian G, Bastani P. Health literacy and health promoting behaviors among inpatient women during COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):77. doi:10.1186/s12905-022-01652-x
  26. Sögüt S, Dolu İ, Cangöl E. The relationship between COVID-19 knowledge levels and anxiety states of midwifery students during the outbreak: A cross-sectional web-based survey. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2021;57(1):246–252. doi:10.1111/ppc.12555
  27. Schmidt L, Shokraneh F, Steinhausen K, Adams CE. Introducing RAPTOR: RevMan Parsing Tool for Reviewers. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):151. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1070-0
  28. Hanneman SK. Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008;19(2):223–234. doi:10.1097/01.AACN.0000318125.41512.a3
  29. Simmonds M. Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):24. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0004-8
  30. Elovic A, Pourmand A. MDCalc Medical Calculator App review. J Digit Imaging. 2019;32(5):682–684. doi:10.1007/s10278-019-00218-y
  31. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med. 2015;25(2):141–151. doi:10.11613/BM.2015.015
  32. Spitzer M, Wildenhain J, Rappsilber J, Tyers M. BoxPlotR: A web tool for generation of box plots. Nat Methods. 2014;11(2):121–122. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2811
  33. Saaiq M, Ashraf B. Modifying PICO question into PICOS model for more robust and reproducible presentation of the methodology employed in a scientific study. World J Plast Surg. 2017;6(3):390–392. PMID:29218294.
  34. Downes L. Motivators and barriers of a healthy lifestyle scale: development and psychometric characteristics. J Nurs Meas. 2008;16(1):3–15. doi:10.1891/1061-3749.16.1.3
  35. Hayashino Y, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias. J Epidemiol. 2005;15(6):235–243. doi:10.2188/jea.15.235
  36. Mittlböck M, Heinzl H. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Statist Med. 2006;25(24):4321–4333. doi:10.1002/sim.2692
  37. Neyman G, Dalsey W. Black Lives Matter protests and COVID-19 cases: Relationship in two databases. J Public Health (Oxf). 2021;43(2):225–227. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdaa212
  38. Haghayegh S, Kang HA, Khoshnevis S, Smolensky MH, Diller KR. A comprehensive guideline for Bland–Altman and intra class correlation calculations to properly compare two methods of measurement and interpret findings. Physiol Meas. 2020;41(5):055012. doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ab86d6
  39. Chen X, Chen H. Differences in preventive behaviors of COVID-19 between urban and rural residents: Lessons learned from a cross-sectional study in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4437. doi:10.3390/ijerph17124437
  40. Ukwenya VO, Fuwape TA, Ilesanmi OS. COVID-19 health literacy, coping strategies and perception of COVID-19 containment measures among community members in a southwestern state in Nigeria. Germs. 2021;11(4):478–497. doi:10.18683/germs.2021.1284
  41. Kearney M, Bornstein M, Fall M, Nianogo R, Glik D, Massey P. Cross-sectional study of COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs and prevention behaviours among adults in Senegal. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e057914. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057914
  42. Gouin JP, MacNeil S, Switzer A, Carrese-Chacra E, Durif F, Knäuper B. Socio-demographic, social, cognitive, and emotional correlates of adherence to physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. Can J Public Health. 2021;112(1):17–28. doi:10.17269/s41997-020-00457-5
  43. Chu DK, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schunemann H. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(4):1500. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.040
  44. Rundle CW, Presley CL, Militello M, et al. Hand hygiene during COVID-19: Recommendations from the American Contact Dermatitis Society. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(6):1730–1737. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.057
  45. Natnael T, Adane M, Goraw S. Hand hygiene practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated factors among barbers and beauty salon workers in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0269225. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269225
  46. Hange N, Agoli AM, Pormento MKL, et al. Impact of COVID 19 response on public health literacy and communication. Health Promot Perspect. 2022;12(1):1–9. doi:10.34172/hpp.2022.01
  47. Lastrucci V, Lorini C, Del Riccio M, et al. The role of health literacy in COVID-19 preventive behaviors and infection risk perception: Evidence from a population-based sample of essential frontline workers during the lockdown in the Province of Prato (Tuscany, Italy). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13386. doi:10.3390/ijerph182413386
  48. Duong MC, Nguyen HT, Duong BT, Vu MT. The levels of COVID-19 related health literacy among university students in Vietnam. Infect Chemother. 2021;53(1):107. doi:10.3947/ic.2020.0152
  49. Seng JJB, Yeam CT, Huang CW, Tan NC, Low LL. Pandemic related health literacy: A systematic review of literature in COVID-19, SARS and MERS pandemics [published as a preprint on May 11, 2020]. Laurel Hollow, USA: medRxiv; 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.05.07.20094227
  50. Barry C, Green S, Payne B, Holmes J, Xu KT. Knowledge of COVID-19 and health literacy among patients seeking care in an emergency department. Int J Innov Res Med Sci. 2021;6(12):862–868. doi:10.23958/ijirms/vol06-i12/1290
  51. Do BN, Tran TV, Phan DT, et al. Health literacy, eHealth literacy, adherence to infection prevention and control procedures, lifestyle changes, and suspected COVID-19 symptoms among health care workers during lockdown: Online survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e22894. doi:10.2196/22894