Does health literacy influence health-related lifestyle behaviors among specialists of health management? A cross-sectional study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2675628/v1

Abstract

Background: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as health-related lifestyle diseases, are the leading cause of mortality and societal and economic burdens. Poor lifestyle behaviors, which are modifiable to improve health, can cause diseases, including NCDs. Health literacy has been recognized as an important determinant of health, and studies have shown that higher health literacy is associated with better health outcomes and positive health-related behaviors. However, few studies have investigated the association between health literacy and health-related lifestyle behaviors to understand the mechanistic link between them. Thus, this study investigated the extent to which health literacy at different levels influences health-related lifestyle behaviors among Japanese health professionals, in line with national health promotion.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among Japanese health management specialists (N = 1,920). Functional, critical, and communicative health literacy were measured. Lifestyle behaviors (exercise, diet and nutrition, sleep, rest, smoking, and alcohol intake), in line with the Japanese National Health Promotion Program, were assessed and calculated into a total cumulative score of health-related lifestyle behaviors. Moreover, we analyzed the associations between the three levels of health literacy and lifestyle behaviors using regression analyses by adjusting for socio-psycho-demographic factors.

Results: Multiple linear regression analyses showed a significant association between the Japanese version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire and total health-related lifestyle scores (standardized β = 0.160, p< 0.001, R = 0.369) after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Similarly, the association between communicative and critical health literacy and the total health-related lifestyle scores was significant (standardized β = 0.122, p < 0.001, R = 0.355). The analysis indicated that individuals who had higher level of health literacy (critical and communicative) than functional health literacy (Japanese version of the Newest Vital Sign score) had higher health-related lifestyle behaviors.

Conclusions: A higher level of health literacy is associated with health-related lifestyle behaviors. Health literacy can be a target for interventions to achieve the national goal of lifestyle-related disease prevention and control.

Background

Many studies have shown that poor lifestyle behaviors cause diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases [1, 2], cancer [3, 4], chronic respiratory diseases [5–7], and diabetes [8–10]. Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as health-related lifestyle diseases, are the leading cause of mortality and societal and economic burdens [11–13]. In addition, many studies have shown that appropriate interventions for health-related lifestyles reduce the incidence of NCDs [14–16]. Thus, health-related lifestyle behaviors are critical targets for interventions to prevent such diseases and reduce the cost of care for them. Besides the medical and societal benefits of improving health-related lifestyle behaviors, studies support that healthy lifestyle behavior benefits people psychologically by showing reduced stress, happiness, higher quality of life, and meaning of life [17–19]. Similar to NCDs, these psychological aspects are considered of national interest in public health policies of multiple countries [20, 21]. Because of the multiple benefits of better health-related lifestyle behaviors, such behaviors are the main target for achieving national health promotion goals in many countries [22–24]. The World Health Organization also supports governmental actions to reduce the burden of NCDs through lifestyle intervention [25].

Health literacy is defined as cognitive and social skills that determine a person’s motivation and ability to gain access to, understand, and use information in ways that promote and maintain good health [26]. Health literacy has been recognized as an important determinant of health, and studies have shown that higher health literacy is associated with better health outcomes and positive health-related behaviors [27–29]. In relation to NCDs, health literacy is the key concept for the prevention, clinical treatment, and control of diseases for public health purposes. Studies have shown that better health outcomes related to NCDs were brought about by health literacy interventions [30, 31].

Despite studies reporting the effects of health literacy on healthier outcomes, the association and causal relationship between health literacy and health-related lifestyle behaviors have been investigated in a limited area and context. Nutbeam categorized health literacy into three levels—functional, communicative, and critical—but many studies have focused on only one level of health literacy [26]. In addition to the narrow aspect of health literacy measurements in the studies, the validity of such measurements was generally insufficient [32]. Moreover, the target populations in previous studies were limited; that is, although the study target population is expanding, majority of the studies were performed in the US and European countries. Additionally, a high proportion of research on health literacy has focused on clinical settings [33, 34]. Thus, there is little evidence to show health literacy and health behavior among the most rapidly aging societies, including Japan, in nonclinical settings.

Healthcare personnel play an important role in health promotion, as they often provide advice on healthy lifestyles. Studies have shown that healthcare personnel are more likely to encourage healthy lifestyle behaviors and provide preventive counseling in clinical settings when they engage in such behaviors [35, 36]. However, although it is crucial for healthcare personnel to maintain healthy lifestyle behaviors to look after their own health, some studies have suggested that health professionals may not practice the expected health-related lifestyle behaviors [37, 38]. Studies have also suggested that more health literacy training is needed for healthcare professionals.

At present, there is little research investigating the association between health literacy and health-related lifestyle behaviors in the context of national health promotion, especially multiple lifestyle behaviors rather than a single specific behavior among healthcare personnel. Investigating the effect of health literacy on health-related lifestyle enables us to better understand the mechanistic link between health literacy and health outcomes and prepare for effective interventions in health promotion practice. This study thus investigated the extent to which health literacy at different levels influences health-related lifestyle behaviors among Japanese health professionals, in line with national health promotion.

Methods

Study design

This was a cross-sectional survey of professional health management specialists. The study participants completed a survey on demographic data, health literacy, and health-related lifestyle behaviors. All questionnaires were sent by mail and administered at the time when the study participants were enrolled after reading the explanation of the study and signed the informed consent to participate in the study. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Saitama Medical University (ID 926, 2020).

Study participants

Study participants were health management specialists certified by the Japanese Association of Preventive Medicine for Adult Disease [39]. This certificate program for health management specialists was sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. These specialists are expected to engage in the community in which they live to conduct health promotion workshops. Specialists in health management are certified through multiple courses of study. Candidates studied various aspects of the course, including health promotion, lifestyle-related diseases, mental health, nutrition, environment and health, physical activity and exercise, emergency medicine, life support, and the healthcare system. The candidates passed the final written examination to be able to register. The specialists were contacted by mail on August 1, 2020, to participate in the study. The inclusion criteria of the study included response to the baseline survey, continued participation in professional education, and provision of written informed consent. There were no exclusion criteria. Among the individuals who met the inclusion criteria (n = 4,530), 1,920 (response rate: 42.4%) agreed to participate in the prospective cohort study, all of whom were included in the analysis.

Variables and measurements

Variables collected in this study included demographic data, health literacy, and health-related lifestyle behaviors. Health literacy was measured using the Communicative and Critical Health Literacy (CCHL) scale [40], Japanese version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (EU-HLS-Q47-J) [41], and Japanese version of the Newest Vital Sign (NVS-J) [42].

CCHL comprises three items on communicative health literacy and two items on critical health literacy. Communicative health literacy asked if the study participants were able to 1) collect health-related information from various sources, 2) extract the information they wanted, 3) understand and communicate the obtained information, 4) consider the credibility of the information, and 5) make decisions based on the information specifically in the context of health-related issues. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.” The NVS-J assesses functional health literacy and consists primarily of questions requiring study participants to read and interpret numerical facts by reading a standard nutritional label. The EU-HLS-Q47-J was validated previously [43] and asked about the comprehensive aspects of health literacy in Japanese ranging from 1, “very difficult” to 4, “very easy,” in addition to 5, “don’t know.”

Lifestyle behaviors regarding eating/dieting, exercise/physical activity, sleep, rest, smoking, and alcohol intake were assessed in the questionnaire. There were 11 health-related lifestyle questions, of which four were two-scaled (“intention to maintain ideal weight,” “exercise,” “manage lifestyle to prevent disease,” and “smoking”). For these items, a score of “1” was assigned for an unhealthy lifestyle behavior and “4” for healthy lifestyle behavior. This mechanism was used to ensure impartiality. Questions regarding alcohol intake included type of alcohol, amount of alcohol consumed, and frequency of drinking. This information indicated if participants drank more than the amount recommended (less than 20 g per day on average) by the Japan’s National Health Promotion Program in the 21st Century (HJ21) [44]. Then, a score of “1” was assigned if participants drank more than a recommended level and “4” if they drank less than 20 g per day on average. The remaining six health-related habits (“reading nutritional information labels,” “maintaining a balanced diet in daily life,” “intention to exercise,” “stress,” “rest,” and “sleep”) were assessed using four scales. Thus, “4” (most favorable) to “1” (least favorable) were assigned to these variables. We then added the values of each answer to the questions on the participants’ health-related lifestyle behaviors as clustered health-related lifestyle scores.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean, average, standard deviation, and range) were used to describe characteristics of the study participants. Pearson’s correlational analyses were performed among the three measurements of health literacy (NVS-J, CCHL, and EU-HLS-Q47-J). Multiple linear regression tests were performed to explain the health-related lifestyle scores based on health literacy. Three different models were fit to adjust for covariates in all three health literacy measurements. The first model (Model 1) was a simple regression between health literacy and lifestyle behaviors. Model 2 included age, sex, income, education, marital status, and family as covariates in the regression analysis. Model 3 included disease status (presence or absence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, cancer, and obesity) in the regression analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. All statistical tests were two tailed. IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26.0. Armonk, NY, USA) was used for all analyses.

Results

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the study participants. Overall, 1,920 certified health management specialists were included in this study. More women (N = 1,181; 61.5%) participated in the study than men. The age range of study participants was from 22 years to 93 years. More than two-thirds of them were married, and three-quarters lived with family. Majority of them (71.9%) received education higher than high school. The averages (standard deviation) of NVS-J, CCHL, and EU-HLSQ47-J were 5.02 (1.67), 18.55 (3.65), and 30.43 (8.36), respectively.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the cohort

Characteristics

Total

Sex; N (%)

  

Male

739 (38.5)

Female

1,181 (61.5)

Age range; N (%)

  

< 30 years

24 (1.3)

30–39 years

109 (5.7)

40–49 years

312 (16.3)

50–59 years

596 (31.0)

60–69 years

552 (28.8)

70–79 years

277 (14.4)

≥ 80 years

50 (2.6)

Age; Average years (standard deviation [SD])

58.5 (21.5)

Education; N (%)

  

Junior high school

27 (1.4)

High school

511 (26.6)

Professional training college

331 (17.2)

College

296 (15.4)

University/Graduate school

755 (39.3)

Marital status; N (%)

  

Married

1,419 (73.9)

Family; N (%)

  

Yes

1,585 (82.6)

Income (million yen/year); N (%)

  

< 200

180 (9.4)

200–600

1,017 (53.0)

> 600

717 (37.3)

Intention to keep ideal weight; N (%)

  

Yes

1,583 (82.4)

No

337 (17.6)

Managing lifestyle for disease prevention; N (%)

  

Yes

1,700 (88.5)

No

220 (11.5)

Reading nutritional information labels; N (%)

  

Always

691 (36.0)

Often

874 (45.5)

Rarely

277 (14.4)

Very rarely

78 (4.1)

Maintaining a balanced diet in daily life; N (%)

  

Always

1,087 (56.6)

Often

677 (35.3)

Rarely

142 (7.4)

Very rarely

14 (0.7)

Intention for exercise; N (%)

  

Always

897 (46.7)

Sometimes

756 (39.4)

In the past

214 (11.1)

Never

52 (2.7)

Adequate exercise; N (%)

  

Yes

1,282 (66.8)

No

638 (33.2)

Excessive alcohol intake; N (%)

  

Smoking (%)

  

Current

381 (19.8)

Past

95 (4.9)

None

1,435 (74.7)

Stress; N (%)

  

High

353 (18.4)

Moderate

1,030 (53.6)

Low

451 (23.5)

None

84 (4.4)

Rest; N (%)

  

Satisfactory

451 (23.5)

Adequate

1,027 (53.5)

Not adequate

388 (20.2)

Not satisfactory

51 (2.7)

Sleep; N (%)

  

Satisfactory

434 (22.6)

Adequate

1,100 (57.3)

Not adequate

370 (19.3)

Not satisfactory

14 (0.7)

Total health-related lifestyle score; average (SD)

95% confidence interval

35.8 (4.15)

[35.7–36.0]

Table 2 shows results of the correlation analyses of the three health literacy measurements. These analyses found a statistically significant correlation between the EU-HLS-Q47-J and the CCHL. While the correlation between the NVS-J and CCHL was significant, the strength of the correlation was low (r = 0.070). There was no significant correlation between NVS-J and EU-HLS-Q47-J.

Table 2

Correlational coefficient among the NVS-J, CCHL, and EU-HLS-Q47-J
 

NVS-J

CCHL

EU-HLS-Q47-J

NVS-J

1.0

-

-

CCHL

0.070*

1.0

-

EU-HLS-Q47-J

0.027

0.318*

1.0
Notes: NVS-J: Japanese version of the New Vital Sign; CCHL: Communicative and Critical Health Literacy scale; EU-HLS-Q47-J: Japanese version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire; * p < 0.01.

The simple regression (Model 1) or multivariable regression (Model 2 and 3) analyses after adjusting for the predetermined variables (age, sex, income, education, status of marriage, family, and lifestyle-related diseases) did not show any significance for NVS-J in explaining total lifestyle behaviors (p = 0.80, 0.10, and 0.15 for Models 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the regression analyses between the two different types of health literacy (EU-HLS-Q47-J and CCHL) and lifestyle behaviors. In both EU-HLS-Q47-J and CCHL analyses on lifestyle behaviors, health literacy significantly explained the variability of total lifestyle behaviors (all p < 0.001).

Table 3

Results from the multiple regression analyses of EU-HLS-Q47-J and total health-related lifestyle score
 

Unstandardized

b (SE)

Standardized β

p

R

Model 1

0.094 (0.011)

0.189

< 0.001

0.189

Model 2

0.078 (0.011)

0.158

< 0.001

0.366

Model 3

0.079 (0.011)

0.160

< 0.001

0.369
Notes: EU-HLS-Q47-J: Japanese version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire; SE: standard error; b: unstandardized coefficients; β: standardized coefficients, R: coefficient of multiple regression. Model 1 was adjusted for no variable; Model 2 was adjusted for age, sex, income, education, marital status, and family; Model 3 was adjusted for lifestyle-related disease in addition to the variables adjusted in Model 2.

Table 4

Results from the multiple regression analyses of CCHL and total health-related lifestyle score
 

Unstandardized

b (SE)

Standardized β

p

R

Model 1

0.164 (0.026)

0.145

< 0.001

0.144

Model 2

0.142 (0.024)

0.125

< 0.001

0.354

Model 3

0.138 (0.025)

0.122

< 0.001

0.355
Notes: CCHL: Communicative and Critical Health Literacy scale; SE: standard error; b: unstandardized coefficients; β: standardized coefficients, R: coefficient of multiple regression. Model 1 was adjusted for no variable; Model 2 was adjusted for age, sex, income, education, marital status, and family; Model 3 was adjusted for lifestyle-related disease in addition to the variables adjusted in Model 2.

Discussion

This study indicated that a higher level, but not a basic level, of health literacy was associated with healthy lifestyle behaviors. Reports have demonstrated an association between health literature and health-related behaviors. Limited health literacy has been shown to be associated with unhealthy lifestyle behaviors [45–48]. Other studies have demonstrated that higher health literacy is related to increased exercise and fruit and vegetable consumption [29, 49, 50]. However, not all studies on health literacy have found such a relationship. Additionally, studies tended to investigate disease populations, such as patients with diabetes, rather than the general population. Showing the association between higher level, not basic level of health literacy, and wide spectrum lifestyle behaviors among people who do not have specific diseases in this study expands the scientific knowledge. In particular, individuals who had gained knowledge and skills of health promotion in line with HJ21 as the target population were directed toward future actions for national health promotion.

While both the EU-HLS-Q47-J and CCHL explained health-related lifestyle behaviors statistically significantly, the NVS-J was not associated with health-related lifestyle behaviors in this study. Various instruments have been developed to improve health literacy. The NVS-J primarily measures the functional level of health literacy, assessing basic reading and writing skills to function effectively in everyday situations. The EU-HLS-Q47-J and CCHL assess more complex health literacy, including communicative and critical health literacy, for practical application in everyday life. Progression from basic and functional health literacy to communicative and critical health literacy requires multiple factors such as advanced cognitive skills, literacy, social and communication capacity, and self-efficacy [26]. Thus, the functional level of health literacy may not be adequate to change behaviors in terms of health. This is supported by the results that only communicative and critical health literacy, but not functional literacy, were associated with health-related lifestyle behaviors in the study.

There are several hypothesized mechanistic links between health literacy and health actions and outcomes in prior studies [51–53]. However, most of these target limited health literacy and patients with certain diseases. None of them provide a clear causal link between health literacy and healthy lifestyle behaviors among populations that are not restricted to narrow disease entities. Baker proposed that health literacy is causally linked to improved health outcomes through several factors, such as new knowledge, positive attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior change [52]. Paasche-Orlow and Wolf illustrated the causal pathway between limited health literacy and health outcomes, where patient and extrinsic factors—including motivation, self-efficacy, problem-solving skills, resources, and support technology—mediate this relationship [51]. Studies on health literacy interventions reported improved health outcomes. While a causal pathway between health literacy and health-related lifestyle behaviors is needed to determine how and what factors affect the relationship, our finding—that a higher level of health literacy is related to health-related lifestyle behaviors—implies that future interventions should target improvements in levels of health literacy. Whether a functional level of health literacy underpins a higher level of health literacy, and is necessary for acquiring higher levels, is of scientific interest considering effective health literacy interventions for a larger population.

Health literacy seems to be the key target for national health promotion, based on existing evidence and our results. The World Health Organization recognized the efforts to raise health literacy as crucial in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development [54]. Many countries, including Japan, emphasize the importance of health literacy in their action plans for national health promotion in an aging environment [55, 56]. There is ample evidence that a healthy lifestyle prevents many diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, or cancers. In addition to the causal relationship between healthy lifestyle and disease prevention, our finding—that higher health literacy helps people improve health-related lifestyle behaviors—supports the national health promotion program that incorporates health literacy intervention into the core target.

This study has several strengths. First, it measured the different types and categories of health literacy. Many studies have emphasized the importance of the method of health literacy measurement due to lack of robustness in previous health literacy studies [32, 57]. All categories of health literacy, including functional, communicative, and critical health literacy in the study, as well as the different effects on lifestyle, are scientifically important evidence. Second, the measurements are in line with the national health promotion policy, which potentially allows us to apply the effect of health literacy to a large population.

This study has a few limitations as well. First, the sampling method did not involve random sampling of the population. While the study’s participation rate was relatively high (42.4%), convenience sampling, which was used here, does not allow application of the results to the general population. Generalizability to other populations or the general population requires a more robust sampling methodology, which is our future target. Second, the measurements were self-administered and may have included report bias.

Conclusion

Health literacy at a higher level, but not the basic level, is associated with health-related lifestyle behaviors of health professionals. Therefore, public health practices should target a higher level of health literacy as an intervention to achieve the national goal of lifestyle-related disease prevention and control.

Abbreviations

CCHL: Communicative and critical health literacy

EU-HLS-Q47-J: Japanese version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire

HJ21: Japan’s National Health Promotion Program in the 21st Century

NCDs: Noncommunicable diseases

NVS-J: Japanese version of the Newest Vital Sign

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study compiled with all the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and obtained approval from the university ethics board. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study. The ethics committee of the Saitama Medical University approved the study (ID 926, 2020).

Consent for publication: NA

Availability of data and materials: The datasets used in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests: All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, no financial interest, nor benefit from the direct application of this research.

Funding: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number JP20K19645).

Authors’ contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception. SK designed this study. Material preparation and data analysis were performed by SK and NH.  SK, NH, KS and RA collected the data. SK and NH interpreted the analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SK and all authors commented on drafted versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. NH provided oversight for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship.

Acknowledgment: We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

References

  1. Mendis S, Puska P, Norrving B. World Health Organization. (‎2011)‎. Global atlas on cardiovascular disease prevention and control. World Health Organization.
  2. Barbaresko J, Rienks J, Nöthlings U. Lifestyle Indices and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2018 Oct;55(4):555-564. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.046.
  3. Zhang YB, Pan XF, Chen J. Cao A, Zhang Y, Xia L, Wang J, Li H, Liu G, Pan A. Combined lifestyle factors, incident cancer, and cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Cancer 122, 1085–1093 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0741-x
  4. Choi JW, Hua TNM. Impact of Lifestyle Behaviors on Cancer Risk and Prevention. J Lifestyle Med. 2021;11(1):1-7. doi:10.15280/jlm.2021.11.1.1
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – United States, 2000–2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57(45):1229–1232.
  6. Hill K, Gardiner PA, Cavalheri V, Jenkins SC, Healy GN. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour: applying lessons to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Intern Med J. 2015;45(5):474–482.
  7. Aniwidyaningsih W, Varraso R, Cano N, Pison C. Impact of nutritional status on body functioning in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and how to intervene. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008;11(4):435–442.
  8. Feldman AL, Long GH, Johansson I, Weinehall L, Fhärm E, Wennberg P, Norberg M, Griffin SJ, Rolandsson O. Change in lifestyle behaviors and diabetes risk: evidence from a population-based cohort study with 10 year follow-up. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 14, 39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0489-8
  9. Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Liu S, Solomon CG, Willett WC. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. N Engl J Med. 2001 Sep 13;345(11):790-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010492. PMID: 11556298.
  10. Sliwinska-Mosson M, Milnerowicz H. The impact of smoking on the development of diabetes and its complications. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2017;14(4):265–276. doi: 10.1177/1479164117701876.
  11. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet, 2016; 388(10053):1659-1724
  12. Reddy KS. Measuring mortality from non-communicable diseases: broadening the band. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e456-e457. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30064-4.
  13. Muka T, Imo D, Jaspers L, Colpani V, Chaker L, van der Lee SJ, Mendis S, Chowdhury R, Bramer WM, Falla A, Pazoki R, Franco OH. The global impact of non-communicable diseases on healthcare spending and national income: a systematic review. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;30(4):251-77. doi: 10.1007/s10654-014-9984-2. Epub 2015 Jan 18.
  14. World Health Organization. (‎2017)‎. Tackling NCDs: 'best buys' and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259232. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
  15. Budreviciute A, Damiati S, Sabir DK, Onder K, Schuller-Goetzburg P, Plakys G, Katileviciute A, Khoja S and Kodzius R (2020) Management and Prevention Strategies for Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) and Their Risk Factors. Front. Public Health 8:574111. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.574111
  16. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, Nathan DM; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7;346(6):393-403. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012512. PMID: 11832527; PMCID: PMC1370926.
  17. Mücke M, Ludyga S, Colledge F, Gerber M. Influence of Regular Physical Activity and Fitness on Stress Reactivity as Measured with the Trier Social Stress Test Protocol: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2018 Nov;48(11):2607-2622. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0979-0. PMID: 30159718.
  18. Conner TS, Brookie KL, Richardson AC, Polak MA. On carrots and curiosity: eating fruit and vegetables is associated with greater flourishing in daily life. Br J Health Psychol 2015;20:413–27.
  19. Hirooka N, Kusano T, Kinoshita S, Aoyagi R, Hidetomo N. Association between healthy lifestyle practices and life purpose among a highly health-literate cohort: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2021;21:820. doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10905-7
  20. Buss PM, Hartz ZMA, Pinto LF, Rocha CMF. Health promotion and quality of life: a historical perspective of the last two 40 years (1980-2020). Cien Saude Colet. 2020 Dec;25(12):4723-4735. doi: 10.1590/1413-812320202512.15902020.
  21. Yokoyama T. National health promotion measures in Japan: Health Japan 21 (the second term). J. Natl. Inst. Public Health 2020;69 (1):14-24.
  22. Arena R, Guazzi M, Lianov L, Whitsel L, Berra K, Lavie CJ, Kaminsky L, Williams M, Hivert M, Franklin NC, Myers J, Dengel D, Lloyd-Jones DM, Pinto FJ, Cosentino F, Halle M, Gielen S, Dendale P, Niebauer J, Pelliccia A, Giannuzzi P, Corra U, Piepoli MF, Guthrie G, Shurney D, AHA Writing Group, Arena R, Berra K, Dengel D, Franklin NC, Hivert M, Kaminsky L, Lavie CJ, Lloyd-Jones DM, Myers J, Whitsel L, Williams M, ESC/EACPR Writing Group, Corra U, Cosentino F, Dendale P, Giannuzzi P, Gielen S, Guazzi M, Halle M, Niebauer J, Pelliccia A, Piepoli MF, Pinto FJ, ACPM Writing Group, Guthrie G, Lianov L, Shurney D, Healthy lifestyle interventions to combat noncommunicable disease—a novel nonhierarchical connectivity model for key stakeholders: a policy statement from the American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, and American College of Preventive Medicine, European Heart Journal, Volume 36, Issue 31, 14 August 2015, Pages 2097–2109, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv207
  23. Merkur S, Sassi F, McDaid D. POLICY SUMMARY 6. Promoting health, preventing disease: is there an economic case? World Health Organization 2013.
  24. Healthy People 2030 Framework. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. US Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/About-Healthy-People/Development-Healthy-People-2030/Framework
  25. Noncommunicable disease. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases
  26. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15:259–267.
  27. Magnani JW, Mujahid MS, Aronow HD, Cené CW, Dickson VV, Havranek E, Morgenstern LB, Paasche-Orlow MK, Pollak A, Willey JZ; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Stroke Council. Health Literacy and Cardiovascular Disease: Fundamental Relevance to Primary and Secondary Prevention: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018 Jul 10;138(2):e48-e74. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000579.
  28. Diederichs C, Jordan S, Domanska O, Neuhauser H (2018) Health literacy in men and women with cardiovascular diseases and its association with the use of health care services - Results from the population-based GEDA2014/2015-EHIS survey in Germany. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0208303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208303
  29. von Wagner C, Knight K, Steptoe A, Wardle J. Functional health literacy and health-promoting behaviour in a national sample of British adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Dec;61(12):1086-90. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.053967. PMID: 18000132; PMCID: PMC2465677.
  30. Zoellner JM, Hedrick VE, You W, Chen Y, Davy BM, Porter KJ, Bailey A, Lane H, Alexander R, Estabrooks PA. Effects of a behavioral and health literacy intervention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverages: a randomized-controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Mar 22;13:38. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0362-1. PMID: 27000402; PMCID: PMC4802861.
  31. Walters R, Leslie SJ, Polson R, Cusack T, Gorely T. Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 30;20(1):1040. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08991-0. PMID: 32605608; PMCID: PMC7329558.
  32. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a population strategy for health promotion. Japan J Health Edu Prom. 2017;25(3):210–222.
  33. Ishikawa, H., Kiuchi, T. Health literacy and health communication. BioPsychoSocial Med 4, 18 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0759-4-18
  34. Anita Peerson, Margo Saunders, Health literacy revisited: what do we mean and why does it matter?, Health Promotion International, Volume 24, Issue 3, September 2009, Pages 285–296, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dap014
  35. Frank E, Dresner Y, Shani M, Vinker S. The association between physicians’ and patients’ preventive health practices. CMAJ. 2013;185(8):649-653.
  36. Abramson S, Stein J, Schaufele M, Frates E, Rogan S. Personal exercise habits and counseling practices of primary care physicians: a national survey. Clin J Sport Med. 2000;10(1):40-48.
  37. Blake H, Harrison C. Health behaviours and attitudes towards being role models. Br J Nurs. 2013;22(2):86-94.
  38. Lobelo F, Duperly J, Frank E. Physical activity habits of doctors and medical students influence their counselling practices. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(2):89-92.
  39. Japanese Association of Preventive Medicine for Adult Disease. Kenko kanrisi [Specialists of health management]. https://www.healthcare.or.jp. Accessed 20 Aug 2021.
  40. Ishikawa H, Nomura K, Sato M, Yano E. Developing a measure of communicative and critical health literacy; a pilot study of Japanese office workers. Health Promot Int. 2008;23(3): 269–274.
  41. Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Pelikan JM, Fullam J, Doyle G, Slonska Z, Kondilis B, Stoffels V, Osborne RH, Brand H. Measuring health literacy in populations: illuminating the design and development process of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q). BMC Public Health. 2013;13, 948. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-948.
  42. Kogure T, Sumitani M, Suka M, Ishikawa H, Odajima T, Igarashi A, Kusama M, Okamoto M, Sugimori H, Kazuo Kawahara K. Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version of the Newest Vital Sign: A Preliminary Study. PLoS ONE 2014;9(4): e94582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094582
  43. Nakayama K, Osaka W, Togari T, Ishikawa H, Yonekura Y, Sekido A, Matsumoto M. Comprehensive health literacy in Japan is lower than in Europe: a validated Japanese-language assessment of health literacy. BMC Public Health 2015;15, 505. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1835-x.
  44. National Institute of Health and Nutrition. Health Japan 21 (the second term) https://www.nibiohn.go.jp/eiken/kenkounippon21/en/kenkounippon21/index.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2021.
  45. Husson O, Mols F, Fransen MP, van de Poll-Franse LV, Ezendam NP. Low subjective health literacy is associated with adverse health behaviors and worse health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors: results from the profiles registry. Psychooncology. 2015 Apr;24(4):478-86. doi: 10.1002/pon.3678. Epub 2014 Sep 19. PMID: 25241852.
  46. Geboers B, de Winter AF, Luten KA, Jansen CJ, Reijneveld SA. The association of health literacy with physical activity and nutritional behavior in older adults, and its social cognitive mediators. J Health Commun. 2014;19 Suppl 2:61-76. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2014.934933. PMID: 25315584.
  47. Reisi M, Javadzade SH, Heydarabadi AB, Mostafavi F, Tavassoli E, Sharifirad G. The relationship between functional health literacy and health promoting behaviors among older adults. J Educ Health Promot. 2014 Nov 29;3:119. doi: 10.4103/2277-9531.145925. PMID: 25540792; PMCID: PMC4275619.
  48. Friis K, Vind BD, Simmons RK, Maindal HT. The Relationship between Health Literacy and Health Behaviour in People with Diabetes: A Danish Population-Based Study. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:7823130. doi:10.1155/2016/7823130
  49. Suka M, Odajima T, Okamoto M, Sumitani M, Igarashi A, Ishikawa H, Kusama M, Yamamoto M, Nakayama T, Sugimori H. Relationship between health literacy, health information access, health behavior, and health status in Japanese people. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 May;98(5):660-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.02.013. Epub 2015 Feb 23. PMID: 25739344.
  50. Speirs KE, Messina LA, Munger AL, Grutzmacher SK. Health literacy and nutrition behaviors among low-income adults. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012 Aug;23(3):1082-91. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2012.0113. PMID: 24212161.
  51. Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2007 Sep-Oct;31 Suppl 1:S19-26. doi: 10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.supp.S19. PMID: 17931132.
  52. Baker DW. The meaning and the measure of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):878-883. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00540.x
  53. Osborn CY, Paasche-Orlow MK, Bailey SC, Wolf MS. The mechanisms linking health literacy to behavior and health status. Am J Health Behav. 2011 Jan-Feb;35(1):118-28. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.1.11. PMID: 20950164; PMCID: PMC3085858.
  54. Promoting health in the SDGs. Report on the 9th Global conference for health promotion, Shanghai, China, 21–24 November 2016: all for health, health for all. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017 (WHO/NMH/PND/17.5). Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
  55. Trezona A, Rowlands G, Nutbeam D. Progress in Implementing National Policies and Strategies for Health Literacy—What Have We Learned so Far? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(7):1554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071554
  56. Ministry of Health, Lobour, and Wealth https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/0000047330.pdf
  57. Haun JN, Valerio MA, McCormack LA, Sørensen K, Paasche-Orlow MK. Health literacy measurement: an inventory and descriptive summary of 51 instruments. J Health Commun. 2014;19 Suppl 2:302-33. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2014.936571. PMID: 25315600.