Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35044310›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Validity Testing and Cultural Adaptation of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) Among People With Chronic Diseases in Taiwan: Mixed Methods Study.

Yu-Chi Chen, Christina Cheng, Richard H Osborne, Lars Kayser, Chieh-Yu Liu, Li-Chun Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. eHealth Literacy of Australian Undergraduate Health Profession Students: A Descriptive Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Yu-Chi ChenInstitute of Clinical Nursing, College of Nursing, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-4144-3265
Christina ChengCentre for Global Health and Equity, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8950-7689
Richard H OsborneCentre for Global Health and Equity, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9081-2699
Lars KayserDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0909-4088
Chieh-Yu LiuDepartment of Health Care Management, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-3283-028X
Li-Chun ChangSchool of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-6704-8995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvancements in digital technologies seek to promote health and access to services. However, people lacking abilities and confidence to use technology are likely to be left behind, leading to health disparities. In providing digital health services, health care providers need to be aware of users' diverse electronic health (eHealth) literacy to address their particular needs and ensure equitable uptake and use of digital services. To understand such needs, an instrument that captures users' knowledge, skills, trust, motivation, and experiences in relation to technology is required. The eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) is a multidimensional tool with 7 scales covering diverse dimensions of eHealth literacy. The tool was simultaneously developed in English and Danish using a grounded and validity-driven approach and has been shown to have strong psychometric properties.

objectiveThis study aims to translate and culturally adapt the eHLQ for application among Mandarin-speaking people with chronic diseases in Taiwan and then undertake a rigorous set of validity-testing procedures.

methodsThe cross-cultural adaptation of the eHLQ included translation and evaluation of the translations. The measurement properties were assessed using classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) approaches. Content validity, known-group validity, and internal consistency were explored, as well as item characteristic curves (ICCs), item discrimination, and item location/difficulty.

resultsThe adapted version was reviewed, and a recommended forward translation was confirmed through consensus. The tool exhibited good content validity. A total of 420 people with 1 or more chronic diseases participated in a validity-testing survey. The eHLQ showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.75-.95). For known-group validity, all 7 eHLQ scales showed strong associations with education. Unidimensionality and local independence assumptions were met except for scale 2. IRT analysis showed that all items demonstrated good discrimination (range 0.27-12.15) and a good range of difficulty (range 0.59-1.67) except for 2 items in scale 7.

conclusionsUsing a rigorous process, the eHLQ was translated from English into a culturally appropriate tool for use in the Mandarin language. Validity testing provided evidence of satisfactory-to-strong psychometric properties of the eHLQ. The 7 scales are likely to be useful research tools for evaluating digital health interventions and for informing the development of health technology products and interventions that equitably suit diverse users' needs.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyTelemedicineChronic DiseaseElectronicsHealth PromotionHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTaiwanchronic illnesscultural adaptationeHealtheHealth literacy questionnaireeHLQvalidation

Identifiers

PMID35044310
PMCPMC8811686

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.