IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i13p6764-d580914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strengthening Critical Health Literacy for Health Information Appraisal: An Approach from Argumentation Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Rubinelli

    (Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002 Luzern, Switzerland
    Swiss Paraplegic Research, 6207 Nottwil, Switzerland)

  • Alexander Ort

    (Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002 Luzern, Switzerland)

  • Claudia Zanini

    (Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002 Luzern, Switzerland
    Swiss Paraplegic Research, 6207 Nottwil, Switzerland)

  • Maddalena Fiordelli

    (Swiss Paraplegic Research, 6207 Nottwil, Switzerland
    Institute of Public Health, Università della Svizzera Italiana, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland)

  • Nicola Diviani

    (Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, 6002 Luzern, Switzerland
    Swiss Paraplegic Research, 6207 Nottwil, Switzerland)

Abstract

The overload of health information has been a major challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health authorities play a primary role in managing this information. However, individuals have to apply critical health literacy to evaluate it. The objective of this paper is to identify targets for strengthening critical health literacy by focusing on the field of argumentation theory. This paper is based on the textual analysis of instances of health information through the lens of argumentation theory. The results show that critical health literacy benefits from: (1) understanding the concept of argument and the supporting reasons, (2) identifying the main argument schemes, and (3) the knowledge and use of the main critical questions to check the soundness of arguments. This study operationalizes the main aspects of critical health literacy. It calls for specific educational and training initiatives in the field. Moreover, it argues in favor of broadening the current educational curricula to empower individuals to engage in informed and quality decision making. Strengthening individuals’ critical health literacy involves interventions to empower in argument evaluation. For this purpose, argumentation theory has analytical and normative frameworks that can be adapted within a lay-audience education concept.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Rubinelli & Alexander Ort & Claudia Zanini & Maddalena Fiordelli & Nicola Diviani, 2021. "Strengthening Critical Health Literacy for Health Information Appraisal: An Approach from Argumentation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-10, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6764-:d:580914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6764/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6764/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sara Rubinelli & Peter Schulz & Kent Nakamoto, 2009. "Health literacy beyond knowledge and behaviour: letting the patient be a patient," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 54(5), pages 307-311, October.
    2. Carmi, Elinor & Yates, Simeon J. & Lockley, Eleanor & Pawluczuk, Alicja, 2020. "Data citizenship: Rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Loredana Covolo & Miriam Guana & Guglielmo Bonaccorsi & Laura Brunelli & Silvana Castaldi & Antonella De Donno & Alessandra Mereu & Marco Verani & Umberto Gelatti, 2022. "Exploring the Online Health Information-Seeking Behavior in a Sample of Italian Women: The “SEI Donna” Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Isolde Martina Busch & Michela Rimondini, 2021. "Empowering Patients and Supporting Health Care Providers—New Avenues for High Quality Care and Safety," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-5, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jamalzadeh, Saeed & Mettenbrink, Lily & Barker, Kash & González, Andrés D. & Radhakrishnan, Sridhar & Johansson, Jonas & Bessarabova, Elena, 2024. "Weaponized disinformation spread and its impact on multi-commodity critical infrastructure networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    2. Joanna Sleigh & Effy Vayena, 2021. "Public engagement with health data governance: the role of visuality," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Chinn, Deborah, 2011. "Critical health literacy: A review and critical analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 60-67, July.
    4. Arthur Dubowicz & Peter J. Schulz, 2014. "Functional Validity of a Judgment Skills Measure within the Concept of Health Literacy for Sleeping Disorder Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, October.
    5. De Rosis, Sabina & Barsanti, Sara, 2016. "Patient satisfaction, e-health and the evolution of the patient–general practitioner relationship: Evidence from an Italian survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1279-1292.
    6. Xuewei Chen & Hongliang Chen, 2020. "Differences in Preventive Behaviors of COVID-19 between Urban and Rural Residents: Lessons Learned from A Cross-Sectional Study in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6764-:d:580914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.