Back

Self-Care Confidence, Professional Support and Health Literacy in the UK: Findings from the Living Self-Care Survey Study

Smith, P. S.; Altalib, S.; Al Ammouri, M.; El-Osta, A.

2025-06-03 primary care research
10.1101/2025.06.01.25328745 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSelf-care is recognized as a cornerstone of modern health and care. The interface between health and care professionals (HCPs) and the public is pivotal in promoting self-care behaviours, yet barriers such as health literacy deficits, professional constraints, misconceptions and disparities in self-care confidence persist. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore how self-care confidence, professional support and health literacy interact to influence self-care behaviours among UK adults, using a validated survey instrument to identify key disparities and enablers. MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was used to collect data from 3,255 UK adults including health and care professionals between January and September 2024. It explored demographic characteristics, self-care knowledge, health literacy, engagement with digital health resources and professional encouragement. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression. ResultsMost respondents (88.5%) reported confidence in maintaining a healthy lifestyle; only 62.0% felt confident managing common illnesses. Healthcare guidance accessibility was perceived as easy (77.4%) but not evaluating treatment options (51.4%) or mental health information accessibility (43.6%). HCPs overwhelmingly endorsed the importance of self-care (94.7%) but barriers included reluctance of patients/clients to engage or take responsibility (64.8%), understanding (59.0%), time constraints (42.7%) and health literacy challenges (45.8%). 68.6% found screening information accessible but 28.1% struggled with interpretation. Regression analyses revealed that older adults (65+) were significantly less confident in self-care with professional guidance (aOR=0.50, p=0.001), whereas males (aOR=1.41, p<0.001) and Black/Asian British individuals (aORs=2.31, 1.98; p<0.001) reported higher confidence levels. ConclusionThis study highlights the complex relationship between professional guidance, self-care confidence and health literacy. While most individuals value and engage in self-care, critical disparities persist, particularly in health literacy and access to digital resources. Targeted interventions and strengthening the public-healthcare professional dialogue and interface will be crucial in advancing self-care as a sustainable pillar of healthcare policy and practice.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.3%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
12.4%
3
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
6
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.8%
7
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
8
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
9
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
11
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
12
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
13
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
14
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
15
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
16
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
18
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
26
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
29
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%