Health Literacy Among University Students in Shaanxi Province of China: A Cross-Sectional Study

1Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: An adequate level of health literacy will help university students to better respond to public health emergencies and reduce unintended harm caused by public health events. The objective of this study was to assess the health literacy levels of students from Universities of Shaanxi province of China, in order to provide a basis for the development of health literacy promotion plan for university students. Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted at five universities in Shaanxi Province of China on the Wen-Juan-Xing online platform. A purposive sampling method was used to 1578 students via self-administered questionnaire. Comparisons of means were made using the t-test and ANOVA, and comparisons of ratios or composition ratios were made using the χ2 test. Results: The mean score for health literacy was (105.33±10.14) out of 135, and the mean scores for the three dimensions of health knowledge, attitudes and practices were (36.093±4.192), (34.178±4.227) and (35.059±4.515) respectively. Of the total sample, 39.2% were classified as sufficient in health literacy. Female students had higher health literacy level than male students (t=4.064, p=0.044), lower grade students scored higher than higher grade (F=3.194, p=0.013), students from urban cities scored higher than those who came from rural areas (t=16.376, p<0.001), and university students with health education experience scored higher than those without (t=24.389, p<0.001). Conclusion: University students’ health literacy is closely related to their gender, grades, family location and health education experience.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wu, S., Shao, B., & Wang, G. (2023). Health Literacy Among University Students in Shaanxi Province of China: A Cross-Sectional Study. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 16, 865–878. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S407113

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free