Abstract
Background: Patients with chronic diseases, like diabetes need to continuously perform tasks associated with self-management especially with medications they use. It is shown that the patients with diabetes with limited HL and PTHL cannot read medication labels correctly, may misuse their medications, spend much more on therapy and generally have difficulties in understanding printed care instructions and perceiving health advice and warnings. There has been an increasing demand for valid and reliable instruments for HL and PTHL assessment in this population. This review aims to search and critically discuss instruments used to assess HL and PTHL in people with type 2 diabetes and propose their use in different settings. Methods: Authors conducted a comprehensive, electronic search of original studies using a structured approach of the Scopus and PubMed databases, during November and the first 2 weeks of December 2020 to find relevant papers. The review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the reporting was based on the PRISMA-ScR. The comparison of instruments was made by utilizing a comparison model related to their structure, measurement scope, range, psychometric properties, validation, strengths, and limitations. Results: The final number of included studies was 24, extracting the following identified instruments: Korean Functional Test HL, NVS, FCCHL, HLS-EU-47, TOFLHA, S-TOFHLA, REALM-R, 3-brief SQ, REALM, HLQ and DNT-15. In all, FCCHL and 3-brief SQ are shown with the broadest measurement scopes. They are quick, easy, and inexpensive for administration. FCCHL can be considered the most useful and comprehensive instrument to screen for inadequate HL. The limitation is that the English version is not validated. Three-brief SQ has many advantages in comparison to other instruments, including that it is less likely to cause anxiety and shame. These instruments can be considered the best for measuring functional HL in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and other chronic diseases. PTHL instruments (REALM and DNT-15) did not find the best application in this population. Conclusions: The future research should be directed in validation of the FCCHL in English and establishing of the structural validity of this questionnaire. Developing a specific PTHL questionnaire for this population will be of great help in management of their disease.