There is an “infodemic” associated with the COVID-19 pandemic—an overabundance of valid and invalid information. Health literacy is the ability to access, understand, appraise, and apply health information, making it crucial for navigating coronavirus and COVID-19 information environments. A cross-sectional representative study of participants ≥ 16 years in Germany was conducted using an online survey. A coronavirus-related health literacy measure was developed (HLS-COVID-Q22). Internal consistency was very high (α = 0.940; ρ = 0.891) and construct validity suggests a sufficient model fit, making HLS-COVID-Q22 a feasible tool for assessing coronavirus-related health literacy in population surveys. While 49.9% of our sample had sufficient levels of coronavirus-related health literacy, 50.1% had “problematic” (15.2%) or “inadequate” (34.9%) levels. Although the overall level of health literacy is high, a vast number of participants report difficulties dealing with coronavirus and COVID-19 information. The participants felt well informed about coronavirus, but 47.8% reported having difficulties judging whether they could trust media information on COVID-19. Confusion about coronavirus information was significantly higher among those who had lower health literacy. This calls for targeted public information campaigns and promotion of population-based health literacy for better navigation of information environments during the infodemic, identification of disinformation, and decision-making based on reliable and trustworthy information.

Background: Health literacy (HL) is defined as the ability to process health-related information to make decisions to maintain health and improve quality of life. A growing number of studies demonstrate that people with lower HL are less likely to use preventive services but more likely to use curative, emergency, or hospital care. Objective: This study investigated the relationship between HL and the use of different types of health services in a sample of the general German population, as we expected that the effect of HL on the frequency of use differs by type of health service. Methods: A nationally representative sample of 2,000 people in Germany was interviewed in person in 2014. Analyses of the data included frequencies of contacts with doctors, other health professionals, hospitals, and emergency services. Analysis also included a HL measure (European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire), as well as sociodemographic and health status indicators. To test whether and how HL is related to the frequency of use of the different types of curative health services, regression analyses were performed. Key Results: Respondents with lower HL scores reported more frequent use of all four included types of curative health services. Although multiple regression analysis showed a direct significant effect of HL only on doctor (β = −.066) and other health professionals visits (β = −.103), no significant direct effect of HL on hospital and emergency services use was found when sociodemographic and health-related factors were controlled for. Conclusions: Health professionals should be aware that their patients are likely to have difficulties in understanding and processing health-related information. Interventions to strengthen HL should aim at improving health care literacy and, moreover, not only address individuals but also consider demands related to the health care system and health professionals' communication skills. Plain Language Summary: This study investigates the relationship between health literacy and health service use in Germany. The results show that health services are used more often by individuals with low health literacy. Thus, health professionals need to take low health literacy into account in their communication with patients. [ HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2018;2(2):e115–e122.]