ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017
Ill Literates or Illiterates? Investigating the eHealth Literacy of Users of Online Health Communities.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of eHealth literacy in adult populations.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- eHealth Literacy Instruments: Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- How Many Instruments Do We Need? Strengths, Weaknesses, and Potentials for Further Developments of Digital Health Literacy Measurement Instruments: Narrative Overview of Reviews and Content Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Self-Efficacy-Based Interventions to Improve eHealth Literacy Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for Health Services Research and Practice - Part I].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- eHealth Literacy and Search Frequency in Relation to Objective Sleep Disorder Knowledge: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Japanese eHealth Literacy Questionnaire Among Users in a Super-Aged Society: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- eHealth Literacy Assessment Instruments: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- eHealth Literacy and Participation in Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring Among Patients With Hypertension: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Clusters of Patient Empowerment and Mental Health Literacy Differentiate Professional Help-Seeking Attitudes in Online Mental Health Communities Users.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The SoCAP (Social Communication, Affiliation, and Presence) Taxonomy of Social Features: Scoping Review of Commercially Available eHealth Apps.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Validation of the extended e-health literacy scale: structural validity, construct validity and measurement invariance.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Electronic Health Literacy Scale-Web3.0 for Older Adults with Noncommunicable Diseases: Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Buffering against exposure to mental health misinformation in online communities on Facebook: the interplay of depression literacy and expert moderation.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Digital Health Literacy During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Health Care Providers in Resource-Limited Settings: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR nursing · 2022Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a new brief scale to measure eHealth literacy in people with type 2 diabetes.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- From Dimensions, Levels and Domains to Context-specific Conceptualizations of Health Literacy.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2022Article
- Factors for Effective Identification of Patients at Nutritional Risk in Clinical Practice: Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Research.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2022Article
- Translation and Validation Study of the French Version of the eHealth Literacy Scale: Web-Based Survey on a Student Population.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health (eHealth) literacy is an important skill that allows patients to navigate intelligibly through the vast, often misleading Web-based world. Although eHealth literacy has been investigated in general and specific demographic populations, it has not yet been analyzed on users of online health communities (OHCs). Evidence shows that OHCs are important Web 2.0 applications for patients for managing their health, but at the same time, warnings have been expressed regarding the quality and relevance of shared information. No studies exist that investigate levels of eHealth literacy among users of OHCs and differences in eHealth literacy between different types of users.
objectiveThe study aimed to investigate eHealth literacy across different types of users of OHCs based on a revised and extended eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS).
methodsThe study was based on a cross-sectional Web survey on a simple random sample of 15,000 registered users of the most popular general OHC in Slovenia. The final sample comprised 644 users of the studied OHC. An extended eHEALS (eHEALS-E) was tested with factor analytical procedures, whereas user types were identified with a hierarchical clustering algorithm. The research question was analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure and pairwise comparison tests.
resultsFactor analysis of the revised and extended eHEALS revealed six dimensions: awareness of sources, recognizing quality and meaning, understanding information, perceived efficiency, validating information, and being smart on the Net. The factor solution demonstrates a good fit to the data (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=.059). The most developed dimension of eHEALS-E is awareness of different Internet sources (mean=3.98, standard deviation [SD]=0.61), whereas the least developed is understanding information (mean=3.11, SD=0.75). Clustering resulted in four user types: active help-seekers (48.3%, 311/644), lurkers (31.8%, 205/644), core relational users (16.9%, 109/644), and low-engaged users (3%, 19/644). Analysis of the research question showed statistically significant differences among user types across all six dimensions of eHEALS-E. Most notably, core relational users performed worse than lurkers on the validating information dimension (P=.01) and worse than active help-seekers on the being smart on the Net dimension (P=.05). Active help-seekers have the highest scores in all dimensions of the eHEALS-E, whereas low-engaged users have statistically significantly lower scores on all dimensions of the eHEALS-E in comparison with the other groups.
conclusionsThose who are looking for advice and support in OHCs by making queries are well equipped with eHealth literacy skills to filter potential misinformation and detect bad advice. However, core relational users (who produce the most content in OHCs) have less-developed skills for cross-validating the information obtained and navigating successfully through the perils of the online world. Site managers should monitor their activity to avoid the spread of misinformation that might lead to unhealthy practices.
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.