SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of eHealth literacy interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Determinants and outcomes of eHealth literacy in healthy adults: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet.International urogynecology journal · 2019Pooled it
- Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Internet-Delivered Health Interventions That Work: Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses and Evaluation of Website Availability.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review.Systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- eHealth literacy interventions for older adults: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Pooled it
- Interventions to assist health consumers to find reliable online health information: a comprehensive review.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Usability and potential impact of a web-based literacy-oriented intervention for community-dwelling patients with complex care needs: a mixed methods case report.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Short-form video exposure characteristics and respiratory symptom severity among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Enhancing digital health literacy in adolescents: evaluation of a co-designed educational app.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Social networking sites use and life satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of e-health literacy, fatigue, uncertainty, and stress.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- A grounded theory study on medical students' proxy online health information seeking behavior.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to health information is critical to enable consumers to participate in decisions on health. Increasingly, such information is accessed via the internet, but a number of barriers prevent consumers making effective use of it. These barriers include inadequate skills to search, evaluate and use the information. It has not yet been demonstrated whether training consumers to use the internet for health information can result in positive health outcomes.
objectivesTo assess the effects of interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (skills to search, evaluate and use online health information). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2008); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (Dialog); ERIC (CSA Illumina); LISA (CSA Illumina); PsycINFO (Ovid); Index to scientific and technical proceedings; SIGLE; ASLIB Index to Theses; ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts; National Research Register/UK CRN Portfolio database; Current Controlled Trials - MetaRegister of Controlled Trials. We searched all databases for the period January 1990 to March 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and associated economic evaluations, quasi-RCTs, interrupted time series analyses, and controlled before and after (CBA) studies assessing interventions to enhance consumers' online health literacy, in any language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed their quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for clarification and to seek missing data. We presented results as a narrative and tabular summary, and calculated mean differences where appropriate. MAIN
resultsWe included two studies: one randomised controlled trial (RCT) and one controlled before and after (CBA) study with a combined total of 470 participants. The RCT compared internet health information classes with patient education classes for participants with HIV infection. Only the RCT, which we rated as having a moderate risk of bias, reported statistically significant positive effects for primary outcomes related to online health literacy in the intervention group, for the following outcomes: 'Self-efficacy for health information seeking', 'health information evaluation skills' and the 'number of times the patient discussed online information with a health provider'. The CBA, which we rated as having a high risk of bias, compared internet health information classes with a control group receiving no intervention among healthy adults aged 50+. It showed significant positive changes only in a secondary (behavioural) outcome in the intervention group, regarding the readiness to adopt the internet as a tool for preventive health information. No adverse effects were reported.There is low quality evidence that such interventions may improve some outcomes relevant to online health literacy in certain populations. AUTHORS'
conclusionsDue to the small number of studies and their variable methodological quality, the evidence is too weak to draw any conclusions about implications for the design and delivery of interventions for online health literacy. There is a need for well-designed RCTs to investigate the effects of such interventions. These should involve different participants (in terms of disease status, age, socio-economic group and gender) to analyse the extent to which online health literacy reduces a barrier to using the internet for health information. Trials should be conducted in different settings and should examine interventions to enhance consumers' online health literacy (search, appraisal and use of online health information) like internet training courses, measuring outcomes up to at least one year after the intervention to estimate the sustainability of the intervention effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.