This study estimated health status by low health literacy and limited English proficiency alone and in combination for Latino, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and White respondents in a population-based sample: 48,427 adults from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey, including 3,715 with limited English proficiency. Multivariate logistic models examined self-reported health by health literacy and English proficiency in the full sample and in racial/ethnic subgroups. Overall, 44.9% with limited English proficiency reported low health literacy, versus 13.8% of English speakers. Among the limited English proficient, Chinese respondents had the highest prevalence of low health literacy (68.3%), followed by Latinos (45.3%), Koreans (35.6%), Vietnamese (29.7%), and Whites (18.8%). In the full sample, respondents with both limited English proficiency/low health literacy reported the highest prevalence of poor health (45.1%), followed by limited English proficiency–only (41.1%), low health literacy–only (22.2%), and neither (13.8%), a hierarchy that remained significant in multivariate models. However, subanalyses revealed that limited English proficient Latinos, Vietnamese, and Whites had equal or greater odds of poor health compared with low health literate/limited English proficient respondents. Individuals with both limited English proficiency and low health literacy are at high risk for poor health. Limited English proficiency may carry greater health risk than low health literacy, though important racial/ethnic variations exist.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by rapidly emerging evidence, changing guidance, and misinformation, which present new challenges for health literacy (HL) and digital health literacy (DHL) skills. This study explored whether COVID-19-related information access, attitudes, and behaviors were associated with health literacy and digital health literacy among college students in the United States. Self-reported measures of health literacy, along with items on pandemic-related attitudes, behaviors, information sources, and social networks, were collected online using a managed research panel. In July 2020, 256 responses were collected, which mirrored the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. colleges. Only 49% reported adequate HL, and 57% found DHL tasks easy overall. DHL did not vary by HL level. In multivariable models, both HL and DHL were independently associated with overall compliance with basic preventive practices. Higher DHL, but not HL, was significantly associated with greater willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the belief that acquiring the disease would negatively impact their life. On average, respondents discussed health with 4–5 people, which did not vary by HL or DHL measures. The usage of online information sources varied by HL and DHL. The study findings can inform future student-focused interventions, including identifying the distinct roles of HL and DHL in pandemic information access, attitudes, and behaviors.

As we write our editorial for a health literacy special issue in the midst of the international COVID-19 crisis, we take this opportunity to highlight the importance of individual, community, and population health literacy. We are not only in a “pandemic” but also an “infodemic”. Health literacy is more important than ever in the face of these global health threats, which have impacted outcomes across the levels of the socio-ecological model (SEM), including individual health behaviors, family relationships, organizational behavior, state policy-making, national mortality statistics, and the international economy in the span of weeks. Our special issue sought to pull together interdisciplinary threads guided by two principles. The first was defining health literacy as essential skills and situational resources needed for people to find, understand, evaluate, communicate, and use information and services in a variety of forms across various settings throughout their life course to promote health and wellbeing. The second was the idea that enhancing health literacy in populations and systems is critical to achieving health equity. In this time of public health need across traditional borders, the inter-sectoral and international perspectives of special issue articles are more urgent than ever. A greater understanding, appreciation, and application of health literacy can support policy action on multiple levels to address major public health challenges. Health literacy should be built deliberately as a population-level resource and community asset. We have summarized the set of articles in this special issue across the levels of the SEM, hoping their thoughtful considerations and interesting findings will help to support global health and wellness and inspire future research, policy, and practice in this global public health emergency and beyond.

In many countries, health literacy research, practice, and policy have been moving away from a focus only on medical care and health-care settings to a much broader conceptualization. In this broader perspective, health literacy can be obtained and used across many other settings (e.g., school, home, workplaces, government) towards achieving health and wellness goals across the life-course for individuals, families, and communities. The education sector is a critical domain towards these achievements and education for health literacy is a fundamental process and outcome. This can help towards important public health goals, including critical health literacy, as oriented not only towards individual actions, but also towards supporting effective social and political action. This Perspective Article describes the importance and utility of the education for health literacy perspective, which, follows a view that health literacy is a key outcome of health education from which improved population health, health promotion and disease prevention could be achieved across diverse contexts. We first describe different educational paradigms to address health literacy and clarify the education for health literacy perspective as a supportive, instructional and capacity-building global resource across the life-course. Then, using specific examples from Canada, America, and Germany, we provide a snapshot of the diverse ways in which the education for health literacy perspective can be found in national policies. These include broad national goals and standards (Germany and Canada) and major health care reform (America). We next consider the tensions and gaps that can arise in the translation and implementation of these policies relative to the ideal education for health literacy perspective, especially related to equity. These include the need for funding, goals of the educational system, and limited evaluation of policy in practice. Finally, we highlight strategic opportunities to achieve education for health literacy and equity especially offering examples from innovative practice in Canada across the lifespan.

Objectives: Cancer is the leading cause of death among Asian Americans. Chinese Americans comprise the largest Asian American ethnic group. Low health literacy (LHL) is associated with lower cancer screening rates, but this association has not been studied in Chinese Americans. We examined the relationship between LHL and meeting US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for cervical, colorectal and breast cancer screening among Chinese Americans. Design: Observational study of Chinese respondents in the 2007 California Health Interview Survey, a population-based survey. Interview languages included English, Cantonese and Mandarin. Setting: California, USA Participants: Chinese respondents in age/gender groupings appropriate for USPSTF cancer screening guidelines ( cervical : women ages 21–65, n=632; colorectal : men or women ages 50–75, n=488; and breast : women ages 50–74, n=326). Outcomes: Relationships were tested using multivariable logistic regression models controlling for healthcare access and demographic factors, including limited English proficiency (LEP). The combined effects of having both LHL and LEP were specifically examined. LHL was measured by 2-items on perceived ease-of-use of written medical materials. All study variables were self-reported. Results: Cancer screening percentages among Chinese Americans were 77.8% for cervical, 50.9% for colorectal (47.9% for women and 54.2% for men), and 85.5% for breast. LHL was associated with lower odds of meeting breast cancer screening guidelines (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.82). Respondents with both LHL and LEP were significantly less likely to have up-to-date colorectal (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.97) and breast cancer screening (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.54) than those with neither health communication barrier. In all multivariable models, having seen a physician in the past year was a significant predictor of an up-to-date screening. Conclusions: In Chinese Americans, LHL and LEP were negatively associated with up-to-date breast and colorectal cancer screening, independent of a recent physician visit. Efforts to promote cancer screening among Chinese Americans should consider and address LHL, LEP and physician access barriers.