Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33533727›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Measurement of Digital Literacy Among Older Adults: Systematic Review.

Sarah Soyeon Oh, Kyoung-A Kim, Minsu Kim, Jaeuk Oh, Sang Hui Chu, JiYeon Choi

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 145 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
105.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

145 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 328 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Soyeon OhMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5709-2311
Kyoung-A KimDepartment of Nursing, Yeoju Institute of Technology, Yeoju, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3521-7758
Minsu KimCollege of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4453-4341
Jaeuk OhCollege of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7053-9907
Sang Hui ChuMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6877-5599
JiYeon ChoiMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1947-7952
Yonsei University · KRYeoju University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous instruments are designed to measure digital literacy among the general population. However, few studies have assessed the use and appropriateness of these measurements for older populations.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to identify and critically appraise studies assessing digital literacy among older adults and to evaluate how digital literacy instruments used in existing studies address the elements of age-appropriate digital literacy using the European Commission's Digital Competence (DigComp) Framework.

methodsElectronic databases were searched for studies using validated instruments to assess digital literacy among older adults. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Instruments were assessed according to their ability to incorporate the competence areas of digital literacy as defined by the DigComp Framework: (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation, (4) safety, and (5) problem-solving ability, or attitudes toward information and communication technology use.

resultsSearches yielded 1561 studies, of which 27 studies (17 cross-sectional, 2 before and after, 2 randomized controlled trials, 1 longitudinal, and 1 mixed methods) were included in the final analysis. Studies were conducted in the United States (18/27), Germany (3/27), China (1/27), Italy (1/27), Sweden (1/27), Canada (1/27), Iran (1/27), and Bangladesh (1/27). Studies mostly defined older adults as aged ≥50 years (10/27) or ≥60 years (8/27). Overall, the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was the most frequently used instrument measuring digital literacy among older adults (16/27, 59%). Scores on the CCAT ranged from 34 (34/40, 85%) to 40 (40/40, 100%). Most instruments measured 1 or 2 of the DigComp Framework's elements, but the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ) measured all 5 elements, including "digital content creation" and "safety."

conclusionsThe current digital literacy assessment instruments targeting older adults have both strengths and weaknesses, relative to their study design, administration method, and ease of use. Certain instrument modalities like the MDPQ are more generalizable and inclusive and thus, favorable for measuring the digital literacy of older adults. More studies focusing on the suitability of such instruments for older populations are warranted, especially for areas like "digital content creation" and "safety" that currently lack assessment. Evidence-based discussions regarding the implications of digitalization for the treatment of older adults and how health care professionals may benefit from this phenomenon are encouraged.

Indexed as

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineagingdigital literacyeHealthehealth literacyelderlyhealthy agingliteracymobile healtholder adultsreviewtelehealth

Identifiers

PMID33533727
PMCPMC7889415
OpenAlexW3125907019

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.