Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30567690›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2018

Health Literacy in Web-Based Health Information Environments: Systematic Review of Concepts, Definitions, and Operationalization for Measurement.

Anna-Maija Huhta, Noora Hirvonen, Maija-Leena Huotari

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Measuring health literacy: methods and tools for assessing general health literacy in adults].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Concept of Digital Health Literacy: A Scoping Review].Jugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Anna-Maija HuhtaDepartment of Information Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9710-2497
Noora HirvonenDepartment of Information Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7577-3057
Maija-Leena HuotariDepartment of Information Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7789-3079

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth literacy research seems to lack a consensus on what aspects to include into literacy in the context of health and on how to operationalize these concepts for measurement purposes. In addition to health literacy, several other concepts, such as electronic health (eHealth) literacy and mental health literacy, have been developed across disciplines. This study examines how these different concepts are used when studying health-related competencies in Web contexts.

objectiveThis study systematically reviews health literacy concepts and definitions and their operationalization in studies focused on Web-based health information environments.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in April 2016 in 6 electronic databases with a limitation to articles in English published between January 2011 and April 2016. Altogether, 1289 unique records were identified and screened according to the predefined inclusion criteria: (1) original, peer-reviewed research articles written in English; (2) the topic of the article concerned literacy in the context of health; (3) informants of the study were lay people, not health professionals or students of the field; and (4) the focus of the study was placed on an Web-based information environment. In total, 180 full texts were screened, of which 68 were included in the review. The studies were analyzed with an emphasis on the used health literacy concepts and measures.

resultsOn the basis of the included studies, several concepts are in use when studying health-related literacy in Web environments, eHealth literacy and health literacy being the most common ones. The reviewed studies represent a variety of disciplines, but mostly medical sciences. Typically, quantitative research methods are used. On the basis of the definitions for health literacy, 3 thematic categories were identified: general and skill-based, multidimensional, and domain-specific health literacy. Most studies adopted a domain-specific concept, followed by the ones that used a general and skill-based concept. Multidimensional concepts occurred least frequently. The general health literacy concepts were usually operationalized with reading comprehension measures, the domain-specific concepts with self-efficacy measures, and multidimensional concepts with several types of measures. However, inconsistencies in operationalization were identified.

conclusionsThe results show that in studies conducted in Web-based information environments, several different health literacy concepts are in use, and there is no clear consensus on the definitions for these concepts. Future studies should place emphasis on the conceptual development of health literacy in Web contexts to gain better results on operationalization for measurement. Researchers are encouraged to provide clear operational definitions for the concepts they use to ensure transparency in reporting.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyInternetResearch DesignConsensusDatabases, FactualHumansSelf Efficacyconsumer health informationhealth literacyinternetreview, systematic

Identifiers

PMID30567690
PMCPMC6315258

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.