The study offers important insights into health literacy challenges among individuals with chronic illnesses, emphasizing its role in care improvement. However, the methodological approach raises certain concerns. For instance, the quantitative analysis focuses on self-reported data, which may be influenced by response bias or subjective interpretation of health literacy levels. Were any objective measures, such as validated health literacy tools or task-based assessments, incorporated to triangulate the findings and enhance reliability? Additionally, the study discusses professional and organizational health literacy but does not quantify their contribution to patient outcomes. Could the authors elaborate on how these dimensions were operationalized and whether their impact was directly measured?
The comment raises important considerations regarding the methodology and measurement of health literacy in the study. My understanding is that the reliance on self-reported data may have been due to practical constraints or the need to capture patients’ perceived abilities in real-world healthcare interactions. However, incorporating objective health literacy assessments, such as validated screening tools or task-based evaluations, could indeed strengthen the reliability of the findings.
Regarding professional and organizational health literacy, it appears that their impact on patient outcomes was discussed conceptually rather than quantitatively measured. If specific indicators or metrics were not used to assess their direct influence, could the authors clarify whether any qualitative or indirect measures were considered? Further elaboration on these aspects would enhance the study’s applicability to healthcare policy and practice.