ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2021
Digitization and Health in Germany: Cross-sectional Nationwide Survey.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Low income and health literacy: a systematic scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to promote health literacy among working-age populations experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage: systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Modifiable predictors of health literacy in working-age adults - a rapid review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- A study protocol evaluating the effectiveness of the older adult's digital health literacy (ODDHeaL) intervention.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Attitudes of dermatological patients towards digital health interventions: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Article
- Digital Transformation in Health Care: Are We on the Right Track?Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With Digital Health Literacy in the United Kingdom: Cross-Sectional Online Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Motivating factors and possible barriers to participation in digital prevention courses of two statutory health insurance funds in Germany: a qualitative interview study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Childbirth readiness and its influencing factors in the Yangtze River Delta region of China: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Validation of the Updated Digital Health Literacy Instrument and Development of a Short Form: Online Survey Study of the General Population.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for health services research and practice - Part II].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- Digital health literacy framework for PE teachers: a grounded theory study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- How digital lifestyles transform women's exercise participation: a mixed methods study from China.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Electronic Health Literacy, Psychological Distress, and Quality of Life in Urological Cancer Patients: A Longitudinal Study During Transition from Inpatient to Outpatient Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Observational
- Chinese patients' use of online healthcare services: an empirical analysis based on Chinese Social Survey 2021 (CSS2021) data.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Public perceptions of digitalisation and patient safety: a cross-sectional survey in Germany.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Determining the Requirements of Vulnerable Groups for Health Counseling and Optimizing the Evaluation of Health Consultations: Mixed Methods Study With the Use of AI.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Sociodemographics and Digital Health Literacy in Using Wearables for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention: Cross-Sectional Nationwide Survey in Germany.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2025Article
- Digital Health Literacy in Adults With Low Reading and Writing Skills Living in Germany: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital technologies are shaping medicine and public health.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes toward and the use of digital technologies for health-related purposes using a nationwide survey.
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study using a panel sample of internet users selected from the general population living in Germany. Responses to a survey with 28 items were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted in October 2020. The items were divided into four topics: (1) general attitudes toward digitization, (2) COVID-19 pandemic, (3) physical activity, and (4) perceived digital health (eHealth) literacy measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS; sum score of 8=lowest to 40=highest perceived eHealth literacy). The data were analyzed in IBM-SPSS24 using relative frequencies. Three univariate multiple regression analyses (linear or binary logistic) were performed to investigate the associations among the sociodemographic factors (age, gender, education, and household income) and digital technology use.
resultsThe participants included 1014 internet users (n=528, 52.07% women) aged 14 to 93 years (mean 54, SD 17). Among all participants, 66.47% (674/1014) completed up to tertiary (primary and secondary) education and 45.07% (457/1017) reported a household income of up to 3500 Euro/month (1 Euro=US $1.18). Over half (579/1014, 57.10%) reported having used digital technologies for health-related purposes. The majority (898/1014, 88.56%) noted that digitization will be important for therapy and health care, in the future. Only 25.64% (260/1014) reported interest in smartphone apps for health promotion/prevention and 42.70% (433/1014) downloaded the COVID-19 contact-tracing app. Although 52.47% (532/1014) reported that they come across inaccurate digital information on the COVID-19 pandemic, 78.01% (791/1014) were confident in their ability to recognize such inaccurate information. Among those who use digital technologies for moderate physical activity (n=220), 187 (85.0%) found such technologies easy to use and 140 (63.6%) reported using them regularly (at least once a week). Although the perceived eHealth literacy was high (eHEALS mean score 31 points, SD 6), less than half (43.10%, 400/928) were confident in using digital information for health decisions. The use of digital technologies for health was associated with higher household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.47). The use of digital technologies for physical activity was associated with younger age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96) and more education (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). A higher perceived eHealth literacy score was associated with younger age (β=-.22, P<.001), higher household income (β=.21, P<.001), and more education (β=.14, P<.001).
conclusionsInternet users in Germany expect that digitization will affect preventive and therapeutic health care in the future. The facilitators and barriers associated with the use of digital technologies for health warrant further research. A gap exists between high confidence in the perceived ability to evaluate digital information and low trust in internet-based information on the COVID-19 pandemic and health decisions.
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.