Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36338314›Full record

ArticlemHealth2022

Addressing and evaluating health literacy in mHealth: a scoping review.

Margaret R Emerson, Sydney Buckland, Maxwell A Lawlor, Danae Dinkel, David J Johnson, Maria S Mickles, Louis Fok, Shinobu Watanabe-Galloway

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 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. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Margaret R EmersonCollege of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Sydney BucklandCollege of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Maxwell A LawlorCollege of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Danae DinkelCollege of Education Health and Human Sciences, University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, USA.
David J JohnsonDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Science, Mercer University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Maria S MicklesCollege of Public Health University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Louis FokCollege of Public Health University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Shinobu Watanabe-GallowayCollege of Public Health University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

digital literacyeHealth literacymental healthmHealthreview

Identifiers

PMID36338314
PMCPMC9634204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.