Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35627789›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Validation of the COVID-19 Digital Health Literacy Instrument in the Italian Language: A Cross-Sectional Study of Italian University Students.

Chiara Lorini, Veronica Velasco, Guglielmo Bonaccorsi, Kevin Dadaczynski, Orkan Okan, Patrizio Zanobini, Luca P Vecchio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Chiara LoriniDepartment of Health Science, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-1857
Veronica VelascoDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20123 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1890-5564
Guglielmo BonaccorsiDepartment of Health Science, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5171-4308
Kevin DadaczynskiDepartment of Health Science, Fulda University of Applied Sciences, 36037 Fulda, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7367-5362
Orkan OkanDepartment of Sports and Health Science, Technical University Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1714-4783
Patrizio ZanobiniDepartment of Health Science, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8202-2937
Luca P VecchioDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20123 Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic and the associated "infodemic" have shown the importance of surveillance and promotion of health literacy, especially for young adults such as university students who use digital media to a very high degree. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Italian version of the COVID-19 adapted version of the Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI). This cross-sectional study is part of the COVID-19 University Students Survey involving 3985 students from two Italian universities. First, item analysis and internal consistency were assessed. Then, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed comparing different models. The Italian DHLI showed good psychometric characteristics. The protecting privacy subscale was excluded, given the criticalities presented in the validation process. CFA confirmed the four-factor structure, also including a high-order factor. This result allows using the scale to measure a global level of digital health literacy and consider its levels separately for each construct component: searching the web for information, evaluating reliability, determining personal relevance, and adding self-generated content.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health LiteracyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInternetLanguageReproducibility of ResultsStudentsUniversitiesYoung AdultCOVID-19digital health literacyinfodemicmeasurementscale validationuniversity students

Identifiers

PMID35627789
PMCPMC9140816

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.