Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284123›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Psychometric Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the Simplified Chinese eHealth Literacy Scale: Cross-Sectional Study.

Richard Huan Xu, Lingming Zhou, Sabrina Yujun Lu, Eliza Laiyi Wong, Jinghui Chang, Dong Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Richard Huan Xu *JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-4720-5172
Lingming Zhou *School of Health management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0989-2071
Sabrina Yujun LuDepartment of Sports Science and Physical Education, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-3185-5437
Eliza Laiyi WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0001-9983-6219
Jinghui ChangSchool of Health management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9981-3575
Dong WangSchool of Health management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6928-8725
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKSouthern Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid proliferation of web-based information on health and health care has profoundly changed individuals' health-seeking behaviors, with individuals choosing the internet as their first source of information on their health conditions before seeking professional advice. However, barriers to the evaluation of people's eHealth literacy present some difficulties for decision makers with respect to encouraging and empowering patients to use web-based resources.

objectiveThis study aims to examine the psychometric properties of a simplified Chinese version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (SC-eHEALS).

methodsData used for analysis were obtained from a cross-sectional multicenter survey. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the structure of the SC-eHEALS. Correlations between the SC-eHEALS and ICEpop capability measure for adults (ICECAP-A) items and overall health status were estimated to assess the convergent validity. Internal consistency reliability was confirmed using Cronbach alpha (α), McDonald omega (ω), and split-half reliability (λ). A general partial credit model was used to perform the item response theory (IRT) analysis. Item difficulty, discrimination, and fit were reported. Item-category characteristic curves (ICCs) and item and test information curves were used to graphically assess the validity and reliability based on the IRT analysis. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to check for possible item bias on gender and age.

resultsA total of 574 respondents from 5 cities in China completed the SC-eHEALS. CFA confirmed that the one-factor model was acceptable. The internal consistency reliability was good, with α=0.96, ω=0.92, and λ=0.96. The item-total correlation coefficients ranged between 0.86 and 0.91. Items 8 and 4 showed the lowest and highest mean scores, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the SC-eHEALS and ICECAP-A items and overall health status were significant, but the strength was mild. The discrimination of SC-eHEALS items ranged between 2.63 and 5.42. ICCs indicated that the order of categories' thresholds for all items was as expected. In total, 70% of the information provided by SC-eHEALS was below the average level of the latent trait. DIF was found for item 6 on age.

conclusionsThe SC-eHEALS has been demonstrated to have good psychometric properties and can therefore be used to evaluate people's eHealth literacy in China.

Indexed as

ChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineChinaclassical test theoryeHEALSelectronic health literacyitem response theorypsychometric property

Identifiers

PMID33284123
PMCPMC7752540
OpenAlexW3104141479

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.