Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22155629›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2011

eHealth literacy among college students: a systematic review with implications for eHealth education.

Michael Stellefson, Bruce Hanik, Beth Chaney, Don Chaney, Bethany Tennant, Enmanuel Antonio Chavarria

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02717169 (Promoting Health Knowledge Among University Students by Using Personal Biometric Information), which is not on this map. Cited by 160 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02717169 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Promoting Health Knowledge Among University Students by Using Personal Biometric Information

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2016 to 2016Enrolled35ConditionsSedentary Lifestyle, InsomniaArmsBiometrical tracker
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

160 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 361 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. eHealth literacy in emergency care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026
    Article

100 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael StellefsonDepartment of Health Education and Behavior, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. mstellefson@ufl.edu
Bruce Hanik
Beth Chaney
Don Chaney
Bethany Tennant
Enmanuel Antonio Chavarria
University of Florida Health · USTexas A&M University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundeHealth literacy refers to the ability of individuals to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic resources and apply such knowledge to addressing or solving a health problem. While the current generation of college students has access to a multitude of health information on the Internet, access alone does not ensure that students are skilled at conducting Internet searches for health information. Ensuring that college students have the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct advanced eHealth searches is an important responsibility particularly for the medical education community. It is unclear if college students, especially those in the medical and health professions, need customized eHealth literacy training for finding, interpreting, and evaluating health- and medical-related information available on the Internet.

objectiveThe objective of our review was to summarize and critically evaluate the evidence from existing research on eHealth literacy levels among college students between the ages of 17 and 26 years attending various 4-year colleges and universities located around the world.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review on numerous scholarly databases using various combinations of relevant search terms and Boolean operators. The records were screened and assessed for inclusion in the review based on preestablished criteria. Findings from each study that met inclusion criteria were synthesized and summarized into emergent themes.

resultsIn the final review we analyzed 6 peer-reviewed articles and 1 doctoral dissertation that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The number of participants in each reviewed study varied widely (from 34 to 5030). The representativeness of the results from smaller studies is questionable. All studies measured knowledge and/or behaviors related to college student ability to locate, use, and evaluate eHealth information. These studies indicated that many college students lack eHealth literacy skills, suggesting that there is significant room for improvement in college students' ability to obtain and evaluate eHealth information.

conclusionAlthough college students are highly connected to, and feel comfortable with, using the Internet to find health information, their eHealth literacy skills are generally sub par. College students, especially in the health and medical professions, would be well served to receive more customized college-level instruction that improves general eHealth literacy.

Indexed as

Computer LiteracyHealth LiteracyTelemedicineAdolescentAdultDatabases, FactualFemaleHealth EducationHumansMaleMedical InformaticsStudentsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22155629
PMCPMC3278088
OpenAlexW2160403063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.