Background: A proliferation of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) have been developed in the implementation science field to facilitate the implementation process. The basic features of these TMFs have been identified by several reviews. However, systematic appraisals on the quality of these TMFs are inadequate. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the usability, applicability, and testability of the current TMFs in a structured way. Methods: A scoping review method was employed. Electronic databases were searched to locate English and Chinese articles published between January 2000 and April 2022. Search terms were specific to implementation science. Additionally, hand searches were administered to identify articles from related reviews. Purpose and characteristics such as the type of TMF, analytical level, and observation unit were extracted. Structured appraisal criteria were adapted from Birken et al.’s Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the TMFs’ usability, applicability, and testability. Results: A total of 143 TMFs were included in this analysis. Among them, the most common purpose was to identify barriers and facilitators. Most TMFs applied the descriptive method to summarize the included constructs or the prescriptive method to propose courses of implementation actions. TMFs were mainly mid-range theories built on existing conceptual frameworks or demonstrated grand theories. The usability of the TMFs needs to be improved in terms of the provision of conceptually matched strategies to barriers and facilitators and instructions on the TMFs usage. Regarding the applicability, little attention was paid to the constructs of macro-level context, stages of scale-up and sustainability, and implementation outcomes like feasibility, cost, and penetration. Also, fewer TMFs could propose recommended research and measurement methods to apply the TMFs. Lastly, explicit hypotheses or propositions were lacking in most of the TMFs, and empirical evidence was lacking to support the claimed mechanisms between framework elements in testability. Conclusions: Common limitations were found in the usability, application, and testability of the current TMFs. The findings of this review could provide insights for developers of TMFs for future theoretical advancements.

Background: Generic health literacy measurement (GHLM) is an important tool to identify individuals with limited health literacy and can assist the design of tailored interventions for improving public health literacy. However, there is no consensus on measuring generic health literacy. The present study aims to review current GHLM used for adults in the literature. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to map the available measurements designed to assess generic health literacy. Results: The review identified 19 GHLM for adults. Most of them applied a multidimensional definition of health literacy with a focus on individuals’ abilities to access, appraise, understand, and apply health information and services. Nutbeam’s conceptual model and Sørensen’s integrated model were widely used among the identified measures as the theoretical foundation. While the social determinants of health (SDH) were acknowledged in the two models, it remains unmentioned in many of the identified measures based on the Nutbeam’s model and needs further development in the measure based on the Sørensen’s model. A total of 39 different domains were assessed in the 19 measurements: prose was identified in 8 measurements and was the most prominent domain; followed by numeracy (n = 7) and interactive (n = 7). SDH related domains such as social support (n = 3), social capital (n = 1) were seldom included in the identified measurements. Conclusions: Although current GHLM adopted a multidimensional construct, they mainly focused on individuals’ abilities and SDH has not been well-developed in the assessment. Further research is required to advance the measuring of the interaction between SDH and health literacy.

This study investigates how health literacy (HL) and trust in health information affected COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Chinese Hong Kong adults. A cross-sectional study was conducted in August 2022. A total of 401 participants completed the study. Participants completed a newly developed Hong Kong HL scale and self-reported their trust levels in health information from different resources. The proportions of early uptake of the first dose and booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine were 69.1% and 71.8%, respectively. The risk of delaying the first dose was higher among participants with inadequate functional HL (OR = 0.58, p = 0.015), adequate levels of two subdomains of critical HL (OR = 1.82, p = 0.013; OR = 1.91, p < 0.01), and low-level trust in health information from the government (OR = 0.57, p = 0.019). Respondents with adequate interactive HL (OR = 0.52, p = 0.014) and inadequate level of one subdomain of critical HL (OR =1.71, p = 0.039) were more likely to delay the booster dose. This negative association between critical HL and vaccination was suppressed by trust in health information from the government. This study shows that HL and trust in health information from the government are associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Efforts should be directed at providing tailored communication strategies with regard to people’s HL and increasing public confidence in health authorities to decrease vaccine hesitancy.