ArticlemHealth2022
Addressing and evaluating health literacy in mHealth: a scoping review.
Article in mHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Real-World Performance Measurement of Patient-Centered Clinical Decision Support Tools: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Pooled it
- Digital solutions, real-world challenges: lessons from mHealth trials in oncology.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Trial
- The impact of culturally tailored video interventions for Long COVID among Hispanic/Latino populations.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Demand Analysis of Mobile Health Applications for Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Across Different E-Health Literacy Levels.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Digital access, digital health information engagement, and self-reported preventive behavior among rural adults in Guizhou, China: media-use ecologies and cross-sectional associations.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Maternal mHealth usability strengthened by trust, governance, and navigation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The Technology Use Survey: An Actionable Digital Literacy Assessment that Matches Clients to Training Resources.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Review
- [Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Smartmonitor-Based Mobile Health in Middle-Aged in Patients Applying the Technology Acceptance Model II].Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing · 2024Article
- Digital Therapeutics (DTx) Expand Multimodal Treatment Options for Chronic Low Back Pain: The Nexus of Precision Medicine, Patient Education, and Public Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Informing Patient-Provider Engagement for Shared Decision Making Through Mobile Health Applications.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- The influence of digital literacy on mHealth app usability: The mediating role of patient expertise.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent surveys have revealed many adults have basic or below basic health literacy, which is linked to medical errors, increased illness, and compromised public health. Health literacy as a concept is multi-faceted extending beyond the individual to include social structures and the context in which health information is being accessed. Delivering health information via mobile devices (mHealth) expands the amount of information available while presenting challenges to ensuring these materials are suitable for a variety of literacy needs. The aims of this study are to discover how health literacy is addressed and evaluated in mHealth app development. Methods: A scoping review of 5 peer-reviewed databases was conducted. Eligible articles were written in English, addressed general literacy or mHealth/digital/eHealth literacy, and collected literacy information in order to incorporate literacy into the design and/or modification of an app or collected literacy information to describe the population being studied. The "Health Literacy Online" (HLO) United States (U.S.) government guide was used as a framework. Results: Thirty-two articles were reviewed. Articles included health literacy recommendations for all HLO categories and some recommendations not aligned with these categories. Most articles addressed health literacy using specific HLO categories though none incorporated every HLO category. The most common categories addressed engagement and testing of mHealth content. Though several studies addressed health literacy through a formal assessment tool, most did not. Evaluation of health literacy in mHealth was end-user focused and did not extensively evaluate content for fit to a variety of individuals with limited health literacy. Conclusions: The recommendations seen consistently in our results in conjunction with formal HLO categories can act as beginning steps towards development of a health literacy evaluation tool for mHealth apps themselves. It is clear efforts are being made to reduce barriers to using mHealth for those with literacy deficits, however, it was also clear that this space has room to be more pragmatic in evaluation of mHealth tools for literacy. End user engagement in design and testing is necessary in future mHealth literacy tool development.
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.