Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34081023›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Application of the eHealth Literacy Model in Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review.

Mariam El Benny, Tamar Kabakian-Khasholian, Fadi El-Jardali, Marco Bardus

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
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 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.3field-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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for health services research and practice - Part II].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. eHealth Literacy Interventions: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Concept of Digital Health Literacy: A Scoping Review].Jugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2024
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mariam El BennyDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-6769-994X
Tamar Kabakian-KhasholianDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-5098-5483
Fadi El-JardaliDepartment of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-4084-6524
Marco BardusDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-0707-7196
American University of Beirut · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly being adopted globally to address various public health issues. DHIs can be categorized according to four main types of technology: mobile based, web based, telehealth, and electronic health records. In 2006, Norman and Skinner introduced the eHealth literacy model, encompassing six domains of skills and abilities (basic, health, information, scientific, media, and computer) needed to effectively understand, process, and act on health-related information. Little is known about whether these domains are assessed or accounted for in DHIs.

objectiveThis study aims to explore how DHIs assess and evaluate the eHealth literacy model, describe which health conditions are addressed, and which technologies are used.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of the literature on DHIs, based on randomized controlled trial design and reporting the assessment of any domain of the eHealth literacy model. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. A duplicate selection and data extraction process was performed; we charted the results according to the country of origin, health condition, technology used, and eHealth literacy domain.

resultsWe identified 131 unique DHIs conducted in 26 different countries between 2001 and 2020. Most DHIs were conducted in English-speaking countries (n=81, 61.8%), delivered via the web (n=68, 51.9%), and addressed issues related to noncommunicable diseases (n=57, 43.5%) or mental health (n=26, 19.8%). None of the interventions assessed all six domains of the eHealth literacy model. Most studies focused on the domain of health literacy (n=96, 73.2%), followed by digital (n=19, 14.5%), basic and media (n=4, 3%), and information and scientific literacy (n=1, 0.7%). Of the 131 studies, 7 (5.3%) studies covered both health and digital literacy.

conclusionsAlthough many selected DHIs assessed health or digital literacy, no studies comprehensively evaluated all domains of the eHealth literacy model; this evidence might be overlooking important factors that can mediate or moderate the effects of these interventions. Future DHIs should comprehensively assess the eHealth literacy model while developing or evaluating interventions to understand how and why interventions can be effective.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyTelemedicineDiagnostic Tests, RoutineElectronic Health RecordsHumansMental HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicconsumer health informationdigital health interventionseHealth literacymHealthmobile phonescoping review

Identifiers

PMID34081023
PMCPMC8212628
OpenAlexW3164427914

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.