Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30013857›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

Effects of two-week e-learning on eHealth literacy: a randomized controlled trial of Japanese Internet users.

Toshiharu Mitsuhashi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. eHealth Literacy Interventions: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Toshiharu MitsuhashiCenter for Innovative Clinical Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

eHealth literacye-learningHealth literacyInternetMedical educationRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID30013857
PMCPMC6047505

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.