Health literacy is a significant resource for daily life in society. Global evidence reveals that there are less than ideal levels of health literacy in populations. One potential straproviding them with the skills and tools that will improve their knowledge and practice as our future workforce. The purpose of this study was to articulate the need to develop an online health literacy introductory course for university students in Germany. A total of 16 students from two German universities participated in focus group interviews to collect data on the extent of student health literacy awareness and related health and education needs. Nine international stakeholders participated in an online self-guided review of a comprehensive draft course to obtain detailed feedback from experts in the education and health literacy fields. Results revealed that both focus group and international stakeholders are in support of developing an online health literacy curriculum. To build the draft curriculum, an existing Canadian health literacy online course was adapted as a blueprint for the German context. The proposed course was customized based on the findings from the focus groups and international stakeholder feedback, which is intended to help inform and determine contents, design, and delivery of such a course applicable for universities in Germany and beyond.
SimondsSK. Health education as social policy. Health Educ Monogr. 1973; 2: 1–25.
2.
RatzanS. Health literacy: communication for the public good. Health Promot Int. 2001; 16: 207–214.
3.
SørensenKPelikanJMRöthlinFGanahlKSlonskaZDoyleG. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Public Health. 2015; 25: 1053–1058.
Canadian Council on Learning.Health Literacy in Canada: Initial Results from the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Learning; 2007.
6.
Nielsen-BohlmanLPanzerAMKindigDA (Eds). Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;2004.
VamosSRootmanI. Health literacy as a lens for understanding non-communicable diseases and health promotion. In: McQueenDV (ed) Global Handbook on Non-Communicable Diseases and Health Promotion. New York, NY: Springer; 2013, pp.169–187.
11.
Van der HeideIWangJDroomersMSpreeuwenbergPRademakersJUitersE. The relationship between health, education, and health literacy: results from the Dutch adult literacy and life skills survey. J Health Commun. 2013; 18: 172–184.
NutbeamD. The evolving concept of health literacy. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67: 2072–2078.
14.
NutbeamD. 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.
15.
RootmanIGordon-El-BihbetyD. A vision for a health literate Canada: report of the expert panel on health literacy. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Public Health Association; 2008. Available from: http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/portals/h-l/report_e.pdf (accessed 27 October 2016).
16.
LenartzN. Gesundheitskompetenz und Selbstregula-tion. Göttingen;2012.
17.
HernandezLM. Health Literacy: Improving Health, Health Systems, and Health Policy around the World. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
18.
VamosSYeungP. Development of a core online health literacy course in Canada. Pedagogy Health Promot. 2016; 1–10. doi: 10.1177/2373379916662481.
RaufABaigLJafferyTShafiR. Exploring the trustworthiness and reliability of focus groups for obtaining useful feedback for evaluation of academic programs. Educ Health. 2014; 27: 28–33.
24.
FerschB. Meaning: lost, found or ‘made’ in translation? A hermeneutical approach to cross-language interview research. Qual Stud. 2013; 4: 86–99.
25.
JordanSHoebelJ. Health literacy of adults in Germany: findings from the German Health Update (GEDA) study. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2015; 58: 942–950.
26.
SinghalARogersE. A theoretical agenda for entertainment-education. Commun Theory. 2002; 2: 117–135.
27.
HanschAHillersLMcConachieKNewmanCSchildhauerTSchmidtP. Video and online learning: critical reflections and findings from the field. HIIG Discussion Paper Series No. 2015–02. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577882 (accessed 27 October 2016).
28.
MeansBYukieTMurphyRBakieaMJonesK. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education; 2009. Available from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505824.pdf (accessed 27 October 2016).
29.
BrooksCDJeongA. Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Educ. 2006; 2: 371–390.
30.
EarlK. Student views on short-text assignment formats in fully online courses. Distance Educ. 2013; 34: 161–174.
31.
NandiDHamiltonMHarlandJ. Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Educ. 2012; 33: 5–30.
32.
SwanK. Research on online learning. J Asynchronous Learn Networks. 2007; 11: 55–59.
GibsonPADunningPT. Creating quality online course design through a peer-reviewed assessment. J Public Affairs Educ. 2012; 18: 209–228.
36.
ChaneyBHEddyJMDormanSMGlessnerLGreenBLLara-AlecioR. Development of an instrument to assess student opinions of the quality of distance education courses. Am J Distance Educ. 2007; 21: 145–164.
37.
McDermottRJSarvelaPD. Health Education Evaluation and Measurement: A Practitioner’s Perspective. 2nd ed.Madison, WI: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
38.
TonesK. Health literacy: new wine in old bottles?Health Educ Res. 2002; 17: 287–290.
