ArticlePeerJ2018
Effects of two-week e-learning on eHealth literacy: a randomized controlled trial of Japanese Internet users.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of eHealth literacy interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to health technology adoption by older adults with chronic diseases: an integrative systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Hygiene Knowledge and Digital Health Literacy in Emergency Medical Services in Germany: A Cross-Sectional Study of EMS Personnel and Emergency Physicians with Relevance for the Development of Training Programmes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acceptability and perceived usefulness of the CHAMPS intervention for improving medication adherence among people with HIV in Alabama and New York.International journal of medical informatics · 2025Article
- E-health literacy and influencing factors of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer patients: a latent profile analysis.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- eHealth Literacy Interventions: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Development and effectiveness evaluation of an interactive e-learning environment to enhance digital health literacy in cancer patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Comparing the effects of premarital booklet- and video-based educations on the reproductive health literacy of engaged couples.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Assessing Vulnerability to Surges in Suicide-Related Tweets Using Japan Census Data: Case-Only Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Performance-Based Measurement of eHealth Literacy: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Epidemiology and patients' self-reported knowledge of implantable medical devices: Results of a cross-sectional survey in Hungary.PloS one · 2023Article
- Assessing eHealth Literacy and Identifying Factors Influencing Its Adoption Among Cancer Inpatients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Guangdong Population.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Article
- A Comprehensive Analysis of E-Health Literacy Research Focuses and Trends.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- eHealth Literacy: From Theory to Clinical Application for Digital Health Improvement. Results from the ACCESS Training Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Is Electronic Health Literacy Associated with Learning Outcomes among Medical Students in the First Clinical Year?: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2021Article
- Patients With Cancer Searching for Cancer- or Health-Specific Web-Based Information: Performance Test Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Perceived Efficiency Outcomes, Sources and Awareness of Online Health Information among the Elderly during COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Exploring eHealth Literacy and Patient-Reported Experiences With Outpatient Care in the Hungarian General Adult Population: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Internet is widely used as a source of information by people searching for medical or healthcare information. However, information found on the Internet has several drawbacks, and the ability to consume accurate health information on the Internet (eHealth literacy) is increasingly important. This study's goal was to clarify the extent to which eHealth literacy is improved after e-learning in a randomized controlled trial.
methodsData were collected on 301 Japanese adults through an online survey. Participants were assigned to the intervention (e-learning about eHealth literacy) group or the control group in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group included 148 participants, and 153 participants were in the control group. The participants provided information at baseline on demographic characteristics, self-rated health, and frequency of Internet searching. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), which was the main measure of eHealth literacy, and data on secondary outcomes (the Healthy Eating Literacy Scale and skill for evaluating retrieved search results) were obtained at baseline and at follow-up. The score difference was calculated by subtracting the score at baseline from the score at follow-up. Linear regression analysis and multinomial regression analysis were performed using the differences in score as the dependent variables and the intervention as the explanatory variable. Intention-to-treat analysis was employed.
resultsThe results from participants who responded to all of the questions both times were analyzed (134 in the intervention group and 148 in the control group). eHEALS increased 1.57 points due to the intervention effect (Δ score change = 1.57; 95% CI [0.09-3.05]; DISCUSSION: eHealth literacy improved after the e-learning, as evidenced by the change to the eHEALS scores and increased skill for evaluating retrieved search results. There was no significant effect of e-learning, which did not include content on healthy eating, on the Healthy Eating Literacy Scale scores. This indicates that scores did not increase much due to effects other than e-learning, as is sometimes seen with the Hawthorne effect. Although it was statistically significant, the effect size was small. Therefore, future research is necessary to verify the clinical implications. In sum, this study suggests that e-learning is an effective way to improve eHealth literacy.
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.