Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33720031›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Testing the Digital Health Literacy Instrument for Adolescents: Cognitive Interviews.

Eunhee Park, Misol Kwon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Learning digital health literacy in school: results of a representative survey of pupils in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Digital health literacy of pupils. Level and associations with physical activity and dietary behavior].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Eunhee ParkSchool of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1577-2244
Misol KwonSchool of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9608-2754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing number of youth seeking health information on the internet, few studies have been conducted to measure digital health literacy in this population. The digital health literacy instrument (DHLI) is defined as a scale that measures the ability to operate digital devices and read and write in web-based modes, and it assesses seven subconstructs: operational skills, navigation skills, information searching, evaluating reliability, determining relevance, adding self-generated content to a web-based app, and protecting privacy. Currently, there is no validation process of this instrument among adolescents.

objectiveThis study aims to explore the usability and content validity of DHLI.

methodsUpon the approval of institutional review board protocol, cognitive interviews were conducted. A total of 34 adolescents aged 10-18 years (n=17, 50% female) participated in individual cognitive interviews. Two rounds of concurrent cognitive interviews were conducted to assess the content validity of DHLI using the thinking aloud method and probing questions.

resultsClarity related to unclear wording, undefined technical terms, vague terms, and difficult vocabularies was a major issue identified. Problems related to potentially inappropriate assumptions were also identified. In addition, concerns related to recall bias and socially sensitive phenomena were raised. No issues regarding response options or instrument instructions were noted.

conclusionsThe initial round of interviews provided a potential resolution to the problems identified with comprehension and communication, whereas the second round prompted improvement in content validity. Dual rounds of cognitive interviews provided substantial insights into survey interpretation when introduced to US adolescents. This study examined the validity of the DHLI and suggests revision points for assessing adolescent digital health literacy.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyAdolescentCognitionFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnairesadolescentcognitive interviewdigital health literacyehealth literacy

Identifiers

PMID33720031
PMCPMC8074835

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.