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.
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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of eHealth literacy in adult populations.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Short-Term Effects of an eHealth Care Experiential Learning Program Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Translation and Psychometric Validation of the Amharic eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- First assessment of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) among French people with chronic kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Telemedicine Service Experience Questionnaire for Chinese Outpatients: Development and Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- eHealth Literacy Mediating Social Support and Technology Acceptance Among Patients With Chronic Illnesses: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Exploring the status and influencing factors of nurses' digital health literacy: a scoping review.BMC nursing · 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
- Using cluster analysis to identify the health literacy strengths and challenges of people living with motor neurone disease in Australia.BMC health services research · 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
- eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Internet Use Among Swedish Primary Health Care Visitors: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Online Health Information Seeking, eHealth Literacy, and Health Behaviors Among Chinese Internet Users: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Review of Recent Developments and Advances.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Serbian Version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ): Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Validation Study Among Primary Health Care Users.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Professionals Evaluating Clients' Suitability for Digital Health and Social Care: Scoping Review of Assessment Instruments.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Preliminary validity testing of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ): a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Norwegian hospitalized patients.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Translation, cultural adaptation and validity assessment of the Dutch version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: a mixed-method approach.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Swedish Version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- eHealth Literacy of Australian Undergraduate Health Profession Students: A Descriptive Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Exploring digital health literacy clusters in a Norwegian stroke survivor population-A cross-sectional study (NORFAST).Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.