1

Volume 21
2022
e227259

Original Article

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v21i00.8667259

1 Department of Health Sciences 
and Children’s Dentistry, School of 
Dentistry of Piracicaba, University 
of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 
Brazil. 

2 Teacher at the Faculty of 
Dentistry of the State University 
of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, 
Paraná, Brazil. 

3 University of Zaragoza, Spain. 

4 Faculty of Medicine of Jundiaí, 
Jundiaí, São Paulo, Brazil. 

Corresponding author:  
Dr Marília Jesus Batista 
Department of Health Sciences 
and Children’s Dentistry, Piracicaba 
Dental School – University of 
Campinas. Avenida Limeira, 901 – 
Piracicaba, SP – Brazil.  
Zip Code: 13414-018. P.O. Box 52.  
Phone: 55 (19) 2106 5209;  
Fax: 55 (19) 2106 5218.  
Cell phone: 55 (11)94449 1191.  
E-mail: mariliajbatista@yahoo.com.br, 
mariliamota@g.fmj.br

Editor: Altair A. Del Bel Cury

Received: October 13, 2021

Accepted: May 25, 2022

Health literacy dimensions 
among public health 
service users with chronic 
diseases in Piracicaba, 
Brazil, 2019
Carla Fabiana Tenani1 , Manoelito Ferreira Silva 
Junior2 , Maria da Luz Rosário de Sousa1,3 , Marilia 
Jesus Batista1,4,*

Aim: This study analyzes factors associated with dimensions of 
health literacy (HL) functional, communicative and critical among 
public health service users with chronic non-communicable 
diseases. Methods: A cross-sectional analytical research was 
carried out in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, with adults and older 
adults attending Family Health Units (FHU). Data were collected 
by oral exam (CPOD and CPI) and a questionnaire on systemic 
conditions, sociodemographic factors, health behaviors 
and HLS (HLS-14). The outcomes consisted of functional, 
communicative, and critical HL dimensions dichotomized by 
median (high and low), which were analyzed by chi-square test 
(p<0.05) to find associations with the variables studied. Results: 
The study sample comprised 238 FHU users with 62.7 (± 10.55) 
mean age, of which 47.5% (n=113) showed high functional HL, 
50.0% (n=119) high communicative HL, and 46.2% (n=110) high 
critical HL. High functional HL was associated with men (p<0.05). 
Functional and communicative HL were associated with having 
higher education (p<0.001 and p=0.018, respectively). High 
communicative and critical HL were associated with regular 
use of dental and medical services (p<0.05). Individuals with low 
functional HL were more likely to present poor tooth brushing 
(p=0.020). High HL (in all three dimensions) was associated with 
regular flossing and having more teeth (p<0.05). Conclusion: 
Functional, communicative and critical HL were associated with 
health behaviors and clinical outcomes, whereas the functional 
dimension was also associated with sociodemographic factors. 
HL dimensions allowed to differentiate health-related factors.

Keywords: Health literacy. Oral health. Chronic disease. 
Health policy. National health programs. Public health. 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-2763
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8837-5912
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0346-5060
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0379-3742


2

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

Introduction

The demographic and epidemiological transition has widened the age pyramid and 
increased the prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCD) in the world 
population and, subsequently, in the Brazilian population1. Of strong behavioral char-
acter, these morbidities require co-responsibility between health professionals and 
patients to control their consequences. In this regard, health literacy (HL) has been 
considered a key to health promotion and to improve health decision-making2.

Health Literacy refers to personal knowledge, motivation, and skills to make health 
decisions throughout life2. According to Nutbeam’s concept, HL comprises three 
dimensions: functional, communicative, and critical literacy3. Functional HL consists 
of sufficient basic reading and writing skills to be used in everyday situations. In this 
dimension, one’s role is passive. In the communicative dimension, one seeks informa-
tion through direct communication with reliable sources, such as health professionals, 
thus playing an active role. The critical dimension requires more advanced cognitive 
skills, such as critical analysis to judge whether a health information is appropriate and 
represents a greater control over one’s own health, requiring a proactive role3,4.

A low HL can have an impact on people’s health5, representing difficulties in making 
health-related decisions. Studies suggest that adults and older individuals with low 
HL have less access to and understanding of health information, use medications 
inappropriately, have less disease prevention and control, with higher rates of morbid-
ity and hospitalization3. Conversely, a high HL means being able to take responsibility 
for the collective health and one’s own6.

Measuring health literacy remains a challenge for health professionals and manag-
ers, especially regarding the elaboration of strategies for developing critical thinking6. 
Most of the existing instruments for HL measurement target specific health condi-
tions such as oral health7 or diabetes8, and few of them take on a multidimensional 
approach9,10. Most measure only functional HL11 and one more dimension12.

Using an instrument able to assess the three HL dimensions, as described by Nut-
beam, would thus allow us to identify the different aspects that might interfere in how 
people manage their health. In a community approach, information on the associated 
factors of HL dimensions contribute to assist and to plan health strategies in differ-
ent health contexts, health conditions and/or age groups13. The Health Literacy Scale 
(HLS-14)10, for example, is a validated instrument that presents three dimensions14.

Given this context, this study sought to analyze the socio-demographic variables, 
health behaviors and clinical factors associated with HL dimensions among public 
health service users with chronic non-communicable diseases.

Materials and methods

Study design and location

A cross-sectional analytical study was carried out with users of the Unified Health 
System (SUS), with follow up at Family Health Units (FHU) in the municipality of Pira-



3

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

cicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational 
Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines15.

Location

According to the last census (2010), Piracicaba has a population of 364,571 inhabi-
tants in the urban area, with an adult and older population of 261,56716.

In 2018, the municipality’s health network had 71 Basic Health Units, of which 51 
were FHUs. This study included only adult and older adult hypertensive and/or dia-
betic users.

Sample

We performed a sample calculation considering the prevalence of low HL as 50%, 
based on Puello (2018)17, with a margin of error of 0.1 and design effect (deff)=2. Pre-
dicting probable losses, we added 20%, totaling 298 participants. 

Sample selection

Selection took place in two stages: first, we chose the FHU and then the participants. 
We performed a probabilistic drawing of eight Family Health Units and then four alter-
nates, considering the number of hypertensive and/or diabetic users in the population 
registered at the FHU, according to a study by Morgan (2013)18. After two FHU refused 
to participate, two of the alternates were included. We had to include the remaining 
two alternate FHU to reach the sample size, thus totaling a final sample of 10 partic-
ipating FHU (Figure 1). Estimating possible losses and refusals, we added 10 partici-
pants for each selected FHU, with 40 users taken from the list of hypertensive and/or 
diabetic patients registered at each health unit. 

8 FHU
n = 240

C
al

cu
la

te
d

S
am

pl
e

USF 1
n = 40

USF 2
n = 40

USF 33
n = 40

USF 4
n = 40

USF 5
n = 40

USF 6
n = 40

USF
alternate

1

USF
alternate

2

USF
alternate

3

USF
alternate

4

USF 7
n = 40

USF 8
n = 40

alternates

Figure 1. Distribution of the sample of NCD patients (type 2 diabetes and hypertension) and the FHUs 
selected for the study, adapted from Morgan (2013).



4

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

The health teams of each selected FHU randomly distributed 40 invitations to regis-
tered users with type 2 diabetes and/or SAH in attendance on the scheduled dates to 
participate in the study. Data collection took place at the FHU during its opening hours. 

Inclusion criteria consisted of patients registered and monitored at the FHU in Pira-
cicaba for type 2 diabetes and/or SAH, who attend the FHU on the scheduled day 
and time. Exclusion criteria included presence of abscesses or emergency oral health 
care on the day of collection, refusal to undergo clinical dental examination, and being 
unable to answer the questionnaire due to physical and/or psychological status 
(informed by the respective FHU).

Data collection

Clinical data were collected by a dental surgeon (DS) after an 8-hour theoretical 
and practical training with an experienced examiner, with intra-examiner agreement 
which, considered within reliability standards, ranged from 90.6% to 100.0% for caries 
and periodontal disease19,20.

Clinical oral examinations were performed by the examining board, properly 
dressed, and under World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, using a sterile peri-
odontal probe and a clinical mirror, with the participant sitting in a chair, under nat-
ural light21, at the FHU offices. The clinical conditions evaluated were visible dental 
biofilm22, index of decayed, lost and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) and Community 
Periodontal Index (CPI)21.

Interviews were conducted with the participants following a questionnaire with 66 
objective questions about behaviors, oral and general health determinants20,23. 

Subsequently, we applied the Health Literacy Scale (HLS-14)10 validated in Brazil-
ian Portuguese14. This instrument presents 14 questions (5 for the functional and 
communicative dimensions and 4 for the critical dimension), answered by a 5-point 
Likert-type scale, with the following categories: “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “nei-
ther agree nor disagree,” “agree” and “strongly agree.” Total score ranges from 14 to 
70 points, with higher scores indicating better HL. In the functional dimension (ques-
tions 1 to 5) the score is reversed, where agreeing means having low HL, whereas the 
questions related to communicative (questions 6 to 10) and critical literacy (ques-
tions 11 to 14) refer to high HL10.

Data on blood pressure and glycemic indexes were collected from the current infor-
mation in the medical records.

Application of the questionnaire and HL instrument and the clinical oral examination 
were performed on the same day.

Study variables

Our variable of interested was HL, presented, in each dimension, at two levels: low and 
high, dichotomized by the median. Cutoff points for high and low levels were 11.0 for the 
functional dimension, 16.5 points for the communicative dimension, and 14.0 for critical 
literacy. Figure 2 summarizes the three dimensions3 and roles4, namely: functional HL – 
passive role, communicative HL – active role, and critical HL – proactive role.



5

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

Levels of 
Health Literacy

FUNCTIONAL
HL

COMMUNICATION
HL

CRITICAL
HL

PASSIVE ACTIVE PROACTIVE

Basic reading and
writing knowledge

that allows
undestanding

everyday health
situations

Empowerment
and interaction:
more advanced
skills to actively

participate in
daily life, extract
information and
meaning from
different forms

of communication,
and apply them

to change
circumstances

Advanced 
knowledge

in health analysis
and critical thinking.
Social and support

networks, and
skills to critically 

analyze information
that allows for
greater control
over life events
and situations

Figure 2. Flowchart of the adapted health literacy dimensions (Kickbusch, 2004; Nutbeam, 2000). 

The study variables were grouped into sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical 
data. Sociodemographic data consisted of age (considered continuously), gender 
(man or woman), and schooling level (less than 4 years, 4 full years, or 5 years or 
more), the cutoff point being elementary school20,23.

Toothbrushing (up to 2 times/day, 3 or more times/day), flossing (daily use or no daily 
use), use of medical services (1 time/year [regular use], less than 1 time/year [irreg-
ular use]), and use of dental services (1 time/year [regular use], less than 1 time/year 
[irregular use]) were the health behaviors analyzed20,23.

Oral and systemic clinical conditions comprised: tooth loss, not considering third 
molars in calculation performed by codes 4 and 5 of the DMFT index (has 20 teeth 
or more, or has between 1 and 19 teeth, or edentulous) based on the reduced dental 
arch theory24; presence of periodontal pocket with code 3 or 4 per sextant in the CPI 
index (> 4mm) (yes or no); blood glucose (up to 126mg/dl, 127mg/dl or more); blood 
pressure considered normal (systolic [<130mmHg] and diastolic [85-89]); and hyper-
tension (systolic [≥140mmHg] and diastolic [90mmHg or more])25,26.

Data analysis

We performed a descriptive analysis to obtain the frequency, mean, median and 
standard deviation, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 
software version 20.0. Chi-square tests were performed comparing the HL dimen-



6

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

sions with the variables studied (p<0.05). Internal consistence was estimated by 
Cronbach’s α (>0.70). 

Ethical aspects

Study submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee under CAAE 
94104618.7.0000.5418. The research started after approval and signing of the 
Informed Consent Form by the research participants.

Results 
A total of 238 users with chronic diseases participated in the six-month data collec-
tion period. Two users refused to undergo clinical oral examination, and a sample loss 
characterized by the non-attendance of 162 invited users, which was expected and 
calculated in the sample size and selection method.

Mean age was 62.7 (±10.55) years old, and 78.5% (n=187) had lower schooling level. 
Regarding health behaviors, 68.1% (n=162) of the patients flossed regularly, and 74.8% 
(n=172) made irregular use of dental services (+1 year). As for the oral clinical exams, 
57.6% (n=147) of participants presented a periodontal pocket > 4mm (Table 1). 

Table 1. Characteristics of sociodemographic variables, access, health behavior and health conditions 
among patients with chronic non-communicable diseases (n=238), users of Primary Health Care in 
Piracicaba, SP, Brazil, 2019. 

VARIABLES SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC n (%)

Age (years) Mean 62.7(±10.55)

Gender
Women 165 (69.3)

Men 73 (30.7)

Schooling level

4 years 86 (36.1)

4 complete years 101 (42.4)

5 years or over 51 (21.4)

HEALTH BEHAVIORS

Toothbrushing
Up to 2 times/day 103 (43.3)

3 or more times/day 135 (56.7)

Flossing
Daily use 76 (31.9)

No daily use 162 (68.1)

Medical service frequency
Regular use (+ 1 time/year) 181 (76.1)

Irregular use (- 1 time/year) 57 (23;9)

Dental service frequency
Regular use (up to 1 time/year) 58 (25.2)

Irregular use (+ 1 time/ year) 172 (74.8)

CLINICAL CONDITIONS

(1)Dental loss

Have 20 teeth or more 75 (31.5)

Between 20 and 27 teeth 86 (36.1)

Edentulous 77 (32.4)

Continue



7

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

Continuation

Periodontal pocket (> 4mm)
Yes 137 (57.6)

No 101 (42.4)

Glycemia 
Up to 126 mg/dl 113 (47.5)

127 mg/dl or more 125 (52.5)

Systolic Blood Pressure
Up to 139 mmHg 174 (73.1)

140 mmHg or over 64 (26.9)

Diastolic Blood Pressure
Up to 89 mmHg 210 (88.2)

90 mmHg or over 28 (11.8)

Source: Prepared by the authors (2020). Note: (1) Reduced dental arch theory (Armellini and Fraunhofer, 2002).

Regarding health literacy (HL), total mean was 40.4 (± 9.3) points and the median 
42.0 points. Analyzed by dimensions, the mean and standard deviation found were 
11.0 (±4.4) for functional HL, 16.5 (±4.5) for communicative HL, and 14.0 (±3.4) for 
critical literacy. Among users, 47.5% (n=113) showed high functional HL, 50% (n=119) 
high communicative HL and 46.2% (n=110) high critical literacy.

Table 2 presents the distribution of the HL dimensions for each question of the 
HLS-14 instrument. Most patients showed low HL for all three dimensions: functional 
(questions 1 to 4) had a higher percentages of agreement; communicative (questions 
7 to 10) and critical (questions 11 to 14) had higher percentages of disagreement.

Table 2. Distribution of Health Literacy for each question of the HLS-14 instrument among individuals 
with chronic non-communicable diseases (n=238), users of Primary Health Care in Piracicaba, SP, 
Brazil, 2019. 

QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO THE HEALTH 
LITERACY DIMENSIONS* 

ANSWERS

Strongly 
agree

Agree
Neither 

agree nor 
disagree

Disagree
Strongly 
disagree

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

FUNCTIONAL

1. I find words I cannot read 88 (37.0) 82 (34.5) 39 (16.4) 23 (9.7) 6 (2.5)

2. The print is too small for me 82 (42.0) 90 (37.8) 22 (9.2) 22 (9.2) 4 (1.7)

3. The content is very difficult to understand 88 (37.0) 89 (37.4) 35 (14.7) 20 (8.4) 6 (2.5)

4. It takes me a long time to read (the instructions) 72 (30.3) 75 (31.5) 39 (16.4) 48 (20.2) 4 (1.7)

5. I need someone to help me read 65 (27.3) 45 (18.9) 27 (11.3) 91 (38.2) 10 (4.2)

COMMUNICATIVE

6. I look for information in several places 31 (13.0) 76 (31.9) 31 (13.0) 69 (29.0) 31 (13.0)

7. I find the information I need 28 (11.8) 70 (29.4) 36 (15.1) 83 (34.9) 21 (8.8)

8. I understand the information found 26 (10.9) 70 (29.4) 45 (18.9) 80 (33.6) 17 (7.1)

9. I tell my opinion about the disease to my 
doctor, family, or friends

10 (4.2) 52 (21.8) 37 (15.5)
115 

(48.3)
24 (10.1)

Continue



8

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

Continuation

10. I put the information found into practice in 
my daily life

7 (2.9) 19 (8.0) 47 (19.7)
139 

(58.4)
26 (10.9)

CRITICAL

11. I know when the information is good for 
my case

10 (4.2) 37 (15.5) 52 (28.1)
110 

(46.2)
29 (12.2)

12. I consider whether the information is true 6 (2.5) 27 (11.3) 35 (14.7)
143 

(60.1)
27 (11.3)

13. I have knowledge to judge whether the 
information is reliable

17 (7.1) 72 (30.3) 57 (23;9) 78 (32.8) 14 (5.9)

14. I get information that helps me make 
decisions about how to improve my health

10 (4.2) 61 (25.6) 29 (12.2)
112 

(47.1)
26 (10.9)

Source: Prepared by the authors (2020). Note: *HLS-14 instrument (Suka et al., 2013), validated in Brazil by 
Batista et al. (2020).

HL dimensions were associated with the sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical 
variables. The bivariate analysis showed that having more than 20 teeth and regular 
flossing were associated with high HL in all three dimensions (Table 3). 

Confirmatory analysis obtained a Cronbach’s α = 0.87. 

Table 3. Sociodemographic factors, access, health behaviors, and clinical conditions associated with health 
literacy dimensions among patients with chronic non-communicable diseases (n=238), users of Primary 
Health Care in Piracicaba, SP, Brazil, 2019. 

VARIABLES

HEALTH LITERACY DIMENSIONS (HL)

FUNCTIONAL HL COMMUNICATIVE HL CRITICAL HL

< HL > HL
p-value

< HL > HL
p-value

< HL > HL
p-value

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC

Gender
Women

95 
(57.6)

70 
(42.4)

0.019
79 

(47.9)
86 

(52.1)
0.325

86 
(52.1)

79 
(47.9)

0.440

Men
30 

(41.1)
43 

(58.9)
40 

(54.8)
33 

(45.2)
42 

(57.5)
31 

(42.5)

Schooling level

4 years 
54 

(62.8)
32 

(37.2)
<0.001

50 
(58.1)

36 
(41.9)

0.018
48 

(55.8)
38 

(44.2)
0.056

4 complete years
57 

(56.4)
44 

(43.6)
52 

(51.5)
49 

(48.5)
60 

(59.4)
41 

(40.6)

5 years or over 
14 

(27.5)
37 

(72.5)
17 

(33.3)
34 

(66.7)
20 

(39.2)
31 

(60.8)

HEALTH BEHAVIORS

Toothbrushing
Up to 2 times/day

63 
(61.2)

40 
(38.8)

0.020
46 

(44.7)
57 

(55.3)
0.150

58 
(56.3)

45 
(43.7)

0.494

3 or more  
times/day

62 
(45.9)

73 
(54.1)

62 
(45.9)

73 
(54.1)

70 
(51.9)

65 
(48.1)

Flossing
Daily use

32 
(42.1)

44 
(57.9)

0.028
24 

(31.6)
52 

(68.4)
<0.001

28 
(36.8)

48 
(63.2)

<0.001

No daily use
93 

(57.4)
69 

(42.6)
95 

(58.6)
67 

(41.4)
100 

(61.7)
62 

(38.3)

Continue



9

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

Continuation

Medical service 
frequency

Regular use  
(+ 1 time/year)

98 
(54.1)

83 
(45.9)

0.372
101 

(55.8)
80 

(44.2)
<0.001

107 
(59.1)

74 
(40.9)

0.003

Irregular use  
(- 1 time/year)

27 
(47.4)

30 
(52.6)

39 
(68.4)

18 
(31.6)

21 
(36.8)

36 
(63.2)

Dental service 
frequency

Regular  
(up to 1 year 

since last time)

25 
(43.1)

33 
(56.9)

0.094
15 

(25.9)
43 

(74.1)
<0.001

20 
(34.5)

38 
(65.5)

<0.001

Irregular  
(+ than 1 year 

since last time)

96 
(55.8)

76 
(44.2)

102 
(59.3)

70 
(40.7)

105 
(61.0)

67 
(39.0)

CLINICAL CONDITIONS

Dental loss

Have 20 teeth  
or more

29 
(38.7)

46 
(61.3)

0.013
25 

(33.3)
50 

(66.7)
27 

(36.0)
48 

(64.0)
<0.001

Between 20 and 
27 teeth

49 
(57.0)

37 
(43.0)

48 
(55.8)

38 
(44.2)

0.002
47 

(54.7)
39 

(45.3)

Edentulous
47 

(61.0)
30 

(39.0)
46 

(59.7)
31 

(40.3)
54 

(70.1)
23 

(29.9)

Periodontal 
pocket (> 4mm)

Yes
51 

(50.5)
50 

(49.5)
0.591

45 
(44.6)

56 
(55.4)

0.149
88 

(64.2)
49 

(35.8) 
<0.0001

No
74 

(54.0)
63 

(46.0)
74 

(54.0)
63 

(46.0)
40 

(39.6)
 61 

(60.4)

Glycemia
Up to 126 mg/dl

61 
(54,0)

52 
(46,0)

0,668
50 

(44,2)
63 

(55,8)
0,092

60 
(53,1)

53 
(46,9)

0,840

127 mg/dl or over
64 

(51,2)
61 

(48,8)
69 

(55,2)
56 

(44,8)
 68 

(54,4)
57 

(45,6)

Systolic Blood 
Pressure

Up to 139 mmHg
92 

(52.9)
82 

(47.1)
0.857

95 
(54.6)

79 
(45.4)

0.019
103 

(59.2)
71 

(40.8)
0.006

140 mmHg or 
over

33 
(51.6)

31 
(48.4)

24 
(37.5)

40 
(62.5)

25 
(39.1)

39 
(60.9)

Diastolic Blood 
Pressure

Up to 89 mmHg
112 

(53.3)
98 

(46.7)
0.492

105 
(50.0)

105 
(50.0)

1.000
112 

(53.3)
98 

(46.7)
0.704

90 mmHg or over
13 

(46.4)
 15 

(53.6)
14 

(50.0)
14 

(50.0)
16 

(57.1)
12 

(42.9)
Source: Prepared by the authors (2019). Note: *Reduced dental arch theory (Armellini and Fraunhofer, 2002)

Discussion
Our study highlighted different associations between the dimensions of health lit-
eracy (HL) and sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and clinical outcomes. 
A multidimensional evaluation of HL provides a broader approach that can deepen 
our understanding regarding HL levels and enhance one’s health autonomy. Hence, 
the differential of a multidimensional instrument used to increase measurement 
sensitivity is evident, allowing more variables associated with the construct to be 
identified. Despite the research on validated HL tools, few studies have assessed HL 
dimensions and associated factors27. 

The Health Literacy Scale (HLS-14), validated in Brazilian Portuguese, showed good 
internal consistency, which is considered adequate when greater than or equal to 
0.70. Its psychometrics properties were satisfactory to evaluate health literacy, 
as showed by Batista et al.14. 



10

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

Recent studies using HL instruments associated with NCDs, including oral diseases27, 
have assessed mainly reading and writing skills28, that is, only the functional dimen-
sion, disregarding communication and/or broad interaction with health care systems.

In our study, therefore, we chose to use the HLS-14 instrument, a pioneering tool 
for measuring the three HL dimensions (functional, communicative, and criti-
cal), according to Nutbeam (2000)3. Rapidly applicable, with reliable psychomet-
ric indexes not restricted to a specific area or health condition10, it can serve both 
to define clinical protocols more consistent with reality, thus improving people’s 
level of understanding of health information, and to carry out interventions capable 
of improving health literacy29. The questions with the greatest impact on literacy 
inquired about the difficulty in reading and finding information when needed, and 
in communicating one’s opinion about a health condition and being able to judge 
whether the information is reliable.

Regarding sociodemographic factors, men showed greater functional literacy, result 
not found in other studies30. Gender inequity is an important social marker in Bra-
zil, especially in a sample of predominantly older adults. This finding may indicate 
a lack of study opportunities in a generation where these opportunities, including 
decision-making, were restricted for women. Today, as observed in the 2010 census, 
women have a high level of schooling, with female school attendance increasing 9.8% 
in high school compared to men16. Studies also highlight that older adults may have 
limited understanding of health information31 and greater participation of women due 
to the feminization of the aging process32. But even with this limited functional liter-
acy, the literature points to greater self-care among women, including regular use of 
health services33. Consequently, HL needs to go beyond the functional level. 

Our findings showed that high functional and communicative HL were associated 
with high schooling level. These HL dimensions are related to passive and more 
active attitudes, such as communication. However, we must consider the cogni-
tive differences, skills, and roles between people with the same educational level34. 
As such, research that exclude illiterate individuals from its sample30 may lose het-
erogeneity of results and restrict the understanding of literacy dimensions after all, 
literacy is one of and not the only aspect analyzed by HL dimensions. Studies show 
that functional literacy focuses on reading skills, in which the people act more pas-
sively in health-related issues4. Better reading and comprehension skills are asso-
ciated with better formative education, which is related to schooling level, a marker 
and social determinant of health35. HL is thus related to one’s schooling, reflect-
ing on their health behaviors; consequently, developing health literacy can reduce 
health inequalities36.

Regarding oral health behaviors, our results revealed that regular flossing was asso-
ciated with high levels of all HL dimensions. Lower frequency of tooth brushing was 
associated with low functional HL, corroborating a recent study37. Oral health care 
and use of dental services can have an impact on clinical health conditions13.

In our study, regular use of dental services was also associated with communicative 
and critical HL. The literature points out that, besides greater use of services, indi-
viduals with higher HL seek preventive consultations, showing a more active role in 



11

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

the pursuit of health4. An unexpected finding in the present research was the associ-
ation between low communicative and high critical HL and irregular use of medical 
services. This result can be explained by the sample characteristic of patients with 
chronic disease, who need continuous medical follow-up.

The presence of a periodontal pocket was associated with a low critical HL. Oral 
hygiene is associated with HL and with the risk of developing periodontal disease38, 
which can lead to tooth loss.

Tooth loss the worst oral health outcome was associated with all HL dimensions, 
but remains inconclusive13. When associated with risk behaviors for oral diseases, 
HL becomes relevant as a measure to reduce and control tooth loss, as it can help 
promote oral and general health, and studies exploring this topic have been per-
formed39. Thus, an in-depth knowledge of one’s HL level can be an important differ-
entiator in the health-disease process40.

SAH was associated with communicative and critical HL, as shown by Borges et al. 
(2019)30. Considering that such dimensions of HL are associated with people’s proac-
tive abilities4, blood pressure indices may, in this case, be influenced by aspects that 
interfere with their discharge, such as: frequency, type, and access to health services, 
interaction with health professionals, and others37.

Since the outcomes of oral and general health diseases and aggravations, such 
as periodontal disease, tooth loss and SAH, are associated with more advanced 
dimensions of literacy, such as communicative and critical HL, it becomes clear that 
inequality negatively impacts health. 

As for the limitations, we can cite the restricted sample of the study. Nonetheless, 
it was representative of Unified Health System users with SAH and diabetes, where 
important associations between the HL dimensions and aspects involving the inte-
gral health of these users, often neglected in research2, were contemplated. Measur-
ing health literacy by a self-report instrument is always challenging, but using a vali-
dated questionnaire and proper analysis can control bias, thus improving the quality 
of the study. Despite the limitations, our exploratory study presents unprecedent 
results that show a new perspective regarding the application and analysis of health 
literacy dimensions, reaffirming the need for greater research interest in exploring 
and improving on this topic in future studies. 

Improving population HL can reduce the prevalence of chronic health conditions 
and the individual and collective impacts of these morbidities. Our results showed 
that using instruments that cover only functional literacy may be insufficient to 
assess health literacy, and that the analyzes need to incorporate all three dimen-
sions to formulate safer and more accurate strategies for professionals, managers, 
and users. 

The present work contributes to greater attention to the complexity and challenges 
involved in advancing the topic, serving as a starting point for future studies and as 
an aid to evidence-based public health policies that seek to improve the health of SUS 
users. Thus, future studies should consider HL using a multidimensional approach 
for public health policies and health promotion strategies.



12

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

In conclusion, functional, communicative, and critical HL dimensions were associ-
ated with sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical factors among adults and older 
adults with NCDs, users of public health services in a different way.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding the research, author-
ship, and publication of this manuscript. 

Funding
We thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – 
CAPES (code 01) for funding this research. The authors thank Espaço da Escrita – 
Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa – UNICAMP for the language services provided.

Data availability
Datasets related to this article will be available upon request to the corresponding author.

Authors contribution
It is stated that, for the conception of the manuscript, the authors Marilia Jesus 
Batista and Carla Fabiana Tenani made substantial contributions, such as the design 
and elaboration of the work. The author Carla Fabiana Tenani performed the data 
acquisition. The authors Carla Fabiana Tenani, Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior, Maria 
da Luz Rosário de Sousa and Marilia Jesus Batista analyzed and interpreted the data 
for the study. All authors critically reviewed the intellectual content and final approval 
of the version to be published. All authors agreed to be responsible for all aspects of 
ensuring that issues relating to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work 
were properly investigated and resolved.

References

1. Hazra NC, Gulliford M. Evolution of the “fourth stage” of epidemiologic transition in people aged 
80 years and over: population-based cohort study using electronic health records. Popul Health Metr. 
2017 May;15(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12963-017-0136-2. 

2. WHO. Health literacy: the solid facts. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.

3. 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 Sep;15(3):259-67. 
doi: 10.1093/heapro/15.3.259.

4. Kickbusch, I. Improving Health Literacy in the European Union: towards a Europe of informed and 
active health citizens. In: European Health Forum Gastein. 2004  Oct 8 [cited 2022 Jan 5]. Available 
from: https://www.infosihat.gov.my/images/Bahan_Rujukan/He_Ict/Improving_Health_literacy.pdf.

5. Antunes ML, Lopes C. [Contributions of health literacy to the promotion and rationalization of health 
costs]. In: Lopes C, Almeida CV, editors. [Health literacy: models, strategies and intervention]. Lisboa: 
Edições ISPA; 2018. p.43-63. Portuguese.



13

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

6. Lopes C, Almeida CV. [Introduction]. In: Lopes C, Almeida CV, editors. [Health literacy in practice]. 
Lisboa; 2019. p.17-23. Portuguese.

7. Lima LCM, Neves ÉTB, Dutra LDC, Firmino RT, Araújo LJS, Paiva SM, et al. Psychometric properties 
of BREALD-30 for assessing adolescents’ oral health literacy. Rev Saude Publica. 2019 Aug;53:53. 
doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053000999. 

8. Sousa AAD, Quintão ALA, Brito AMG, Ferreira RC, Barros AME, Martins L. Development of a 
health literacy instrument related to diabetic foot. Esc Anna Nery. 2019;23(3):e20180332. 
doi: 10.1590/2177-9465-ean-2018-0332.

9. Al Sayah F, Williams B, Johnson JA. Measuring health literacy in peoples with diabetes:  
a systematic review and evaluation of available measures. Health Educ Behav. 2013 Feb;40(1):42-55. 
doi: 10.1177/1090198111436341. 

10. Suka M, Odajima T, Kasai M, Igarashi A, Ishikawa H, Kusama M, et al. The 14-item health 
literacy scale for Japanese adults (HLS-14). Environ Health Prev Med. 2013 Sep;18(5):407-15. 
doi: 10.1007/s12199-013-0340-z. 

11. Pavão ALB, Werneck GL. [Health literacy in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review]. 
Cien Saude Colet. 2021 Sep;26(9):4101-14. Portuguese. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232021269.05782020.

12. Ishikawa H, Takeuchi T, Yano E. Measuring functional, communicative, and critical health literacy 
among diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2008 May;31(5):874-9. doi: 10.2337/dc07-1932.

13. Firmino RT, Martins CC, Faria LDS, Martins Paiva S, Granville-Garcia AF, Fraiz FC, et al. Association 
of oral health literacy with oral health behaviors, perception, knowledge, and dental treatment related 
outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Public Health Dent. 2018 Jun;78(3):231-45. 
doi: 10.1111/jphd.12266. 

14. Batista MJ, Marques ACP, Silva Junior MF, Alencar GP, Sousa MLR. Translation, 
cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of Brazilian Portuguese version 
of the 14-item Health Literacy Scale.  Cien Saude Colet. 2020 Jul;25(7):2847-57. 
doi: 10.1590/1413-81232020257.22282018.

15. Malta M, Cardoso LO, Bastos FI, Magnanini MMF, Silva CMFP. STROBE initiative: guidelines on 
reporting observational studies. Rev Saude Publica. 2010; 44(3): 559-65. doi: 10.1590/S0034-
89102010000300021. 

16. IBGE. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics Foundation. [Panorama]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 
2010 [cited 2022 Jan 4]. Available from: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/sp/piracicaba/panorama. 
Portuguese.

17. Puello SCP. [Evaluation of health literacy] [dissertation]. Piracicaba: School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, 
University of Campinas; 2018. Portuguese.

18. Morgan BS. [Evaluation of telephone monitoring in the promotion of diabetes self-care in primary 
health care] [dissertation]. Belo Horizonte: School of Nursing, Federal University of Minas Gerais; 
2013. Portuguese.

19. Frias AC, Antunes JLF, Narvai PC. ]Reliability and validity of oral health surveys: dental 
caries in the city of Sao Paulo, 2002]. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2004;7(2):144-54. Portuguese. 
doi: 10.1590/S1415-790X2004000200004. 

20. Ministry of Health of Brazil. [SB Brazil 2010: national oral health survey: main results]. Brasília: 
Ministry of Health; 2011 [cited 2019 Apr 29]. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/
publicacoes/pesquisa_nacional_saude_bucal.pdf. Portuguese.

21. WHO. World Health Organization. Oral health surveys: basic. 5th ed. Genebra: WHO; 2017 [acesso 
2019 jan 07]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241548649.

22. Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J.  
1975 Dec;25(4):229-35.



14

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

23. Silva Junior MF, de Sousa MdR, Batista MJ. Prospective cohort of adult oral health in Piracicaba, SP, 
Brazil. BMC Res Notes. 2019 Apr;12(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4243-y.

24. Armellini D, von Fraunhofer JA. The shortened dental arch: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 
2004 Dec;92(6):531-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.013. 

25. Ministry of Health of Brazil. [Strategies for the care of the person with chronic disease: systemic 
arterial hypertension Brasília]: Ministry of Health; 2013 [cited 2021 Dec 12]. Available from: 
https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/estrategias_cuidado_pessoa_doenca_cronica.pdf. 
Portuguese.

26. Queres JFM, Lima BA, Camara MPM, Santos MCC, Taboada GF. [Evaluation of knowledge  
and attitudes and their relation to diabetes mellitus control parameters]. J Health Connect. 
2018;2(1):21-9. Portuguese.

27. Taoufik K, Divaris K, Kavvadia K, Koletsi-Kounari H, Polychronopoulou A. Development of a Greek 
Oral health literacy measurement instrument: GROHL. BMC Oral Health. 2020 Jan;20(1):14. 
doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-1000-5.

28. Ghaffari M, Rakhshanderou S, Ramezankhani A, Mehrabi Y, Safari-Moradabadi A. Systematic 
review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and 
psychometric properties. BMC Oral Health. 2020 Jul;20(1):186. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01170-y. 

29. Dennis S, Williams A, Taggart J, Newall A, Denney-Wilson E, Zwar N, Shortus T, et al. Which providers 
can bridge the health literacy gap in lifestyle risk factor modification education: a systematic review 
and narrative synthesis. BMC Fam Pract. 2012 May;13:44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-44.

30. Borges FM, Silva ARVD, Lima LHO, Almeida PC, Vieira NFC, Machado ALG. Health literacy 
of adults with and without arterial hypertension. Rev Bras Enferm. 2019 Jun;72(3):646-53. 
doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0366. 

31. Chin J, Madison A, Gao X, Graumlich JF, Conner-Garcia T, Murray MD, et al. Cognition and Health 
Literacy in Older Adults’ Recall of Self-Care Information. Gerontologist. 2017 Apr;57(2):261-8. 
doi: 10.1093/geront/gnv091. 

32. Argimon Irani I. de Lima, Lopes Regina Maria Fernandes, Terroso Lauren Bulcão, Farina Marianne, 
Wendt Guilherme, Esteves Cristiane Silva. [Gender and education: a study through the mini-mental 
state examination (MMSE) in elderly]. Aletheia. 2012 Dec;38-39:153-61. Potuguese.

33. Mesa MS. Health Care Disparities Between Men and Women With Type 2 Diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis. 
2018;15:E46. doi: 10.5888/pcd15.170120.

34. Matsuyama RK, Wilson-Genderson M, Kuhn L, Moghanaki D, Vachhani H, Paasche-Orlow M. 
Education level, not health literacy, associated with information needs for patients with cancer. 
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Dec;85(3):e229-36. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.03.022.

35. Marmot M, Atkinson T, Bell J, Black C, Broadfoot P, Cumberlege J, et al. Fair society, healthy lives:  
the Marmot Review. Strategic review of health inequalities in England. The Marmot Review;  
2010 Feb [cited 2020 Oct 11]. Available from: https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-
reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review/fair-society-healthy-lives-full-report-pdf.pdf.

36. Friis K, Lasgaard M, Rowlands G, Osborne RH, Maindal HT. Health Literacy Mediates the Relationship 
Between Educational Attainment and Health Behavior: A Danish Population-Based Study. J Health 
Commun. 2016;21(sup2):54-60. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1201175. 

37. Batista MJ, Lawrence HP, Sousa MDLR. Oral health literacy and oral health outcomes in an adult 
population in Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2017 Jul;18(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4443-0. 

38. Timková S, Klamárová T, Kovaľová E, Novák B, Kolarčik P, Madarasová Gecková A. Health literacy 
associations with periodontal disease among slovak adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health.  
2020 Mar;17(6):2152. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062152. 



15

Tenani et al.

Braz J Oral Sci. 2022;21: e227259

39. Tenani CF, De Checchi MHR, Bado FMR, Ju X, Jamieson L, Mialhe FL. Influence of oral health literacy 
on dissatisfaction with oral health among older people. Gerodontology. 2020 Mar;37(1):46-52. 
doi: 10.1111/ger.12443.

40. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on 
Population Health and Public Health Practice; Roundtable on Health Literacy. Integrating Oral and 
General Health Through Health Literacy Practices: Proceedings of a Workshop. Wojtowicz A, Olson 
S, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2019 Jul 31.