Health literacy entails the knowledge, motivation, and competencies to access, understand, appraise, and apply health information in order to make judgments and decisions in everyday life concerning health care, disease prevention, and health promotion to maintain or improve quality of life throughout the life course. It has become an essential concept in public health. It is considered a modifiable determinant of health decisions, health behaviors, health, and healthcare outcomes. Prior studies suggest highly variable levels of health literacy across European countries. Assessing and monitoring health literacy is critical to support interventions and policies to improve health literacy. This study aimed to describe the process of adaptation to Portugal of the short-form version of the Health Literacy Survey (HLS₁₉-Q12) from the Health Literacy Population Survey Project 2019–2021, also establishing the health literacy levels in the Portuguese population. The sample comprised 1247 valid cases. The survey consisted of a brief questionnaire on the determinants of health literacy, plus the HLS₁₉-Q12 questionnaire and the specific health literacies packages on digital health literacy, navigational health literacy, and vaccination health literacy. The results suggest that 7 out of 10 people in Portugal (mainland) have high health literacy levels and support the results of other studies concerning the main socioeconomic determinants of general health literacy. Furthermore, the results suggest that “navigation in the health system” tasks are the most challenging tasks regarding specific health literacies. The overall data suggest the HLS₁₉-Q12 as a feasible measure to assess health literacy in the Portuguese population. Thus, it can be used in Portugal to assess the population’s needs and monitor and evaluate policies and initiatives to promote health literacy by addressing its societal, environmental, personal, and situational modifiable determinant factors.

Social prescribing (SP) is an approach that promotes the use of local non-clinical activities by people. The referral is usually made by primary health-care professionals, in a process wherein local providers play a pivotal role. The main objective of this study was to identify domains of intervention and evidence about the effectiveness of SP programs regarding health-related outcomes. A systematic literature review was carried out following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINHAL, and SCOPUS. Inclusion criteria of the reviewed papers were as follows: (i) effectiveness studies of interventions designated as SP or interventions entailing SP conceptual components; (ii) interventions with adults. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials; an assessment tool developed by the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute was applied to observational studies. Overall, 13 articles were included for analysis, with a total of 4603 patients. Although three studies comprised a control group, only two followed a randomized controlled trials (RCT) design. Nine principal domains of intervention within SP were identified, with three categories of outcome measures: Physical and psychological wellbeing; Health behaviors and self-efficacy; and Health care resources end economic evaluation. SP is an emergent and promising health-care intervention, and it has been used to promote different health behaviors. Evidence of SP effectiveness on patient’s health and wellbeing is not strong. Further research is needed for understanding how SP can be applied efficiently.

Aims: Interpretive front-of-package nutrition labelling can contribute to healthier food habits. This systematic review aimed to examine the effectiveness of interpretive front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes on consumers’ food choices, namely at the moment of food purchase, and to analyse if this potential front-of-package nutrition labelling's effect varies according to different socioeconomic groups. Methods: Electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) search was performed to identify peer-reviewed articles describing longitudinal studies evaluating the effect of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes on consumers’ food choices, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Equity 2012 Extension guidelines. No publication-period or language restrictions were applied. PROGRESS-Plus framework was used to report if and how socioeconomic factors were considered in analyses of front-of-package nutrition labelling-related interventions’ effect. Results: Nine studies were selected for narrative synthesis (seven randomized controlled trials and two cross-over trials). When compared with no-interpretive-label conditions, front-of-package nutrition labelling showed a positive impact for nutritional content understanding, healthiness perception of products, selection of products with better nutritional quality, and purchase intention. However, there is no robust evidence of superiority of a specific front-of-package nutrition labelling scheme's effect, neither on consumers’ understanding of nutritional content nor on food choices. An evaluation of the studies following the PROGRESS-Plus framework revealed that socioecononomic status and education were the most frequently used dimensions, when assessing the effect of interpretative front-of-pack nutrition labels. More evidence is necessary to determine the role of front-of-pack nutrition labels in decreasing inequalities between different population subgroups, namely among the most vulnerable subgroups, on the promotion of healthy food choices. Conclusion: Well controlled longitudinal studies, following a real-world evidence approach, are needed to clarify front-of-package nutrition labelling's impact on consumers’ food choices, namely at purchase points, taking into account the most vulnerable population subgroups, such as those with lower literacy and/or financial resources.

Introduction: The promotion of health literacy of the population in a situation of migration, in the community, is a fundamental field of intervention in health promotion, for the reduction of inequalities in access to health care services. It is increasingly necessary to make health care services more equitable for migrant populations. The aim of the study was to characterize the level of health literacy of the population in a migrant situation, attending a primary health care unit in the Lisbon region, to identify priority areas for community intervention that will become the focus of intervention and contribute to the increase in the health literacy levels in this population. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out by applying the Health Literacy Survey (ILS-PT) to a sample of the population in a situation of migration, found by 27 participants. Results: The general health literacy index of the sample is inadequate (21.23 points). An analysis of the sub-indexes revealed that 75% of the participants had difficulties related to information about health care and 80% had difficulties in the field of health promotion. Conclusions: Problematic and inadequate levels of health literacy was significantly frequent among migrant population. So that enhancing health literacy among migrant is essential to reduce health inequalities to achieve better health outcomes and contribute to defense of human rights of this vulnerable population.

To manoeuvre a complex and fragmented health care system, people need sufficient navigational health literacy (NAV-HL). The objective of this study was to validate the HLS₁₉-NAV measurement scale applied in the European Health Literacy Population Survey 2019–2021 (HLS₁₉). From December 2019 to January 2021, data on NAV-HL was collected in eight European countries. The HLS₁₉-NAV was translated into seven languages and successfully applied in and validated for eight countries, where language and survey method differed. The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch modelling. The tested CFA models sufficiently well described the observed correlation structures. In most countries, the NAV-HL data displayed acceptable fit to the unidimensional Rasch partial credit model (PCM). For some countries, some items showed poor data–model fit when tested against the PCM, and some items displayed differential item functioning for selected person factors. The HLS₁₉-NAV demonstrated high internal consistency. To ensure content validity, the HLS₁₉-NAV was developed based on a conceptual framework. As an estimate of discriminant validity, the Pearson correlations between the NAV-HL and general health literacy (GEN-HL) scales were computed. Concurrent predictive validity was estimated by testing whether the HLS₁₉-NAV, like general HL measures, follows a social gradient and whether it forms a predictor of general health status as a health-related outcome of general HL. In some countries, adjustments at the item level may be beneficial.

Identifying the opportunities and barriers of promoting and fulfilling the sexual health rights of migrants remains a challenge that requires systematic assessment. Such an assessment would include estimating the influence of acculturation processes on sexual and reproductive health, and mapping intersectional inequities that influence migrants’ sexual and reproductive health in comparison with the native population. The aim of this research was to locate, select, and critically assess/summarize scientific evidence regarding the social, cultural, and structural factors influencing migrants’ sexual and reproductive health outcomes in comparison with native population. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards was undertaken. Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from their start date until June 2019. The quality of the included articles was determined using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). From the 36 selected studies, only 12 compared migrant with native populations. Overall, the findings indicated that migrants tend to underuse maternal health services and have an increased risk of poor sexual and reproductive health outcomes. Specific intersectional inequities were identified and discussed.