ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Validity Evidence Based on Relations to Other Variables of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ): Bayesian Approach to Test for Known-Groups Validity.
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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- First assessment of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) among French people with chronic kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Relationship Among Internet Use, eHealth Literacy, Internet Addiction, and Physical Activity Among Adolescents: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- Latent profiles analysis and associated factors of digital health literacy among young and middle-aged adults with diabetes.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Japanese eHealth Literacy Questionnaire Among Users in a Super-Aged Society: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Chinese patients' use of online healthcare services: an empirical analysis based on Chinese Social Survey 2021 (CSS2021) data.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Digital health literacy among the Spanish population: a descriptive and latent class analysis study.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Variations in digital health literacy for pediatric caregivers of hospitalized children: implications for digital health equity.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Digital health literacy and sociodemographic factors among students in western Iran: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- eHealth literacy in a migrant community and its association with chronic disease.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Internet Use Among Swedish Primary Health Care Visitors: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Assessing the Reliability and Validity of a Questionnaire Evaluating Medical Students' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Antibiotic Education and Antimicrobial Resistance in University Training.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Validity and Reliability of a Questionnaire on Attitudes, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Pharmacy Students Regarding the Training Received on Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance during Their University Studies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Digital Health Literacy and Its Association With Sociodemographic Characteristics, Health Resource Use, and Health Outcomes: Rapid Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Centering Digital Health Equity During Technology Innovation: Protocol for a Comprehensive Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Tools and Approaches.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Spanish and Catalan Versions of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an mHealth App on Self-Management of Osteoporosis: Prospective Survey Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Digital health literacy and associated factors among internet users from China: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Health literacy strengths and needs among migrant communities from Portuguese-speaking African countries in Portugal: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Restricted health service utilization and subsequent positive self-care behavior during the early COVID-19 pandemic in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs health resources and services are increasingly delivered through digital platforms, eHealth literacy is becoming a set of essential capabilities to improve consumer health in the digital era. To understand eHealth literacy needs, a meaningful measure is required. Strong initial evidence for the reliability and construct validity of inferences drawn from the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) was obtained during its development in Denmark, but validity testing for varying purposes is an ongoing and cumulative process.
objectiveThis study aims to examine validity evidence based on relations to other variables-using data collected with the known-groups approach-to further explore if the eHLQ is a robust tool to understand eHealth literacy needs in different contexts. A priori hypotheses are set for the expected score differences among age, sex, education, and information and communication technology (ICT) use for each of the 7 eHealth literacy constructs represented by the 7 eHLQ scales.
methodsA Bayesian mediated multiple indicators multiple causes model approach was used to simultaneously identify group differences and test measurement invariance through differential item functioning across the groups, with ICT use as a mediator. A sample size of 500 participants was estimated. Data were collected at 3 diverse health sites in Australia.
resultsResponses from 525 participants were included for analysis. Being older was significantly related to lower scores in 4 eHLQ scales, with 3. Ability to actively engage with digital services having the strongest effect (total effect -0.37; P<.001), followed by 1. Using technology to process health information (total effect -0.32; P<.001), 5. Motivated to engage with digital services (total effect -0.21; P=.01), and 7. Digital services that suit individual needs (total effect -0.21; P=.02). However, the effects were only partially mediated by ICT use. Higher education was associated with higher scores in 1. Using technology to process health information (total effect 0.22; P=.01) and 3. Ability to actively engage with digital services (total effect 0.25; P<.001), with the effects mostly mediated by ICT use. Higher ICT use was related to higher scores in all scales except 2. Understanding health concepts and language and 4. Feel safe and in control. Either no or ignorable cases of differential item functioning were found across the 4 groups.
conclusionsBy using a Bayesian mediated multiple indicators multiple causes model, this study provides supportive validity evidence for the eHLQ based on relations to other variables as well as established evidence regarding internal structure related to measurement invariance across the groups for the 7 scales in the Australian community health context. This study also demonstrates that the eHLQ can be used to gain valuable insights into people's eHealth literacy needs to help optimize access and use of digital health and promote health equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.