Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27400726›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016

Being an Informed Consumer of Health Information and Assessment of Electronic Health Literacy in a National Sample of Internet Users: Validity and Reliability of the e-HLS Instrument.

Gül Seçkin, Dale Yeatts, Susan Hughes, Cassie Hudson, Valarie Bell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Factors influencing the e-health literacy in cancer patients: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for Health Services Research and Practice - Part I].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. eHealth Literacy Assessment Instruments: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Concept of Digital Health Literacy: A Scoping Review].Jugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2024
    Review
  20. Article

2 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

5 authors.

Gül SeçkinUniversity of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States. gul.seckin@unt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9522-6736

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Internet, with its capacity to provide information that transcends time and space barriers, continues to transform how people find and apply information to their own lives. With the current explosion in electronic sources of health information, including thousands of websites and hundreds of mobile phone health apps, electronic health literacy is gaining an increasing prominence in health and medical research. An important dimension of electronic health literacy is the ability to appraise the quality of information that will facilitate everyday health care decisions. Health information seekers explore their care options by gathering information from health websites, blogs, Web-based forums, social networking websites, and advertisements, despite the fact that information quality on the Internet varies greatly. Nonetheless, research has lagged behind in establishing multidimensional instruments, in part due to the evolving construct of health literacy itself.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine psychometric properties of a new electronic health literacy (ehealth literacy) measure in a national sample of Internet users with specific attention to older users. Our paper is motivated by the fact that ehealth literacy is an underinvestigated area of inquiry.

methodsOur sample was drawn from a panel of more than 55,000 participants maintained by Knowledge Networks, the largest national probability-based research panel for Web-based surveys. We examined the factor structure of a 19-item electronic Health Literacy Scale (e-HLS) through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity on sample of adults (n=710) and a subsample of older adults (n=194). The AMOS graphics program 21.0 was used to construct a measurement model, linking latent factors obtained from EFA with 19 indicators to determine whether this factor structure achieved a good fit with our entire sample and the subsample (age ≥ 60 years). Linear regression analyses were performed in separate models to examine: (1) the construct validity of the e-HLS and (2) its association with respondents' demographic characteristics and health variables.

resultsThe EFA produced a 3-factor solution: communication (2 items), trust (4 items), and action (13 items). The 3-factor structure of the e-HLS was found to be invariant for the subsample. Fit indices obtained were as follows: full sample: χ(2) (710)=698.547, df=131, P<.001, comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94, normed fit index (NFI)=0.92, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.08; and for the older subsample (age ≥ 60 years): χ(2) (194)=275.744, df=131, P<.001, CFI=0.95, NFI=0.90, RMSEA=0.08.

conclusionsThe analyses supported the e-HLS validity and internal reliability for the full sample and subsample. The overwhelming majority of our respondents reported a great deal of confidence in their ability to appraise the quality of information obtained from the Internet, yet less than half reported performing quality checks contained on the e-HLS.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansInternetMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTelemedicineYoung Adultehealthhealth information technologyhealth literacyinformationInternet

Identifiers

PMID27400726
PMCPMC4960406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.