Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37254148›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Translation, cultural adaptation and validity assessment of the Dutch version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: a mixed-method approach.

Charlotte C Poot, Eline Meijer, Marjolein Fokkema, Niels H Chavannes, Richard H Osborne, Lars Kayser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 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. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Charlotte C PootDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. c.c.poot@lumc.nl.
Eline MeijerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marjolein FokkemaMethodology and Statistics Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Richard H OsborneCentre for Global Health and Equity, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lars KayserDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for a comprehensive, person-centered assessment of eHealth literacy to understand and address eHealth literacy related needs, to improve equitable uptake and use of digital health technologies.

objectiveWe aimed to translate and culturally adapt the original eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) to Dutch and to collect initial validity evidence.

methodsThe eHLQ was translated using a systematic approach with forward translation, an item intent matrix, back translation, and consensus meetings with the developer. A validity-driven and multi-study approach was used to collect validity evidence on 1) test content, 2) response processes and 3) internal structure. Cognitive interviews (n = 14) were held to assess test content and response processes (Study 1). A pre-final eHLQ version was completed by 1650 people participating in an eHealth study (Study 2). A seven-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data to assess the internal structure of the eHLQ. Invariance testing was performed across gender, age, education and current diagnosis.

resultsCognitive interviews showed some problems in wording, phrasing and resonance with individual's world views. CFA demonstrated an equivalent internal structure to the hypothesized (original) eHLQ with acceptable fit indices. All items loaded substantially on their corresponding latent factors (range 0.51-0.81). The model was partially metric invariant across all subgroups. Comparison of scores between groups showed that people who were younger, higher educated and who had a current diagnosis generally scored higher across domains, however effect sizes were small. Data from both studies were triangulated, resulting in minor refinements to eight items and recommendations on use, score interpretation and reporting.

conclusionThe Dutch version of the eHLQ showed strong properties for assessing eHealth literacy in the Dutch context. While ongoing collection of validity evidence is recommended, the evidence presented indicate that the eHLQ can be used by researchers, eHealth developers and policy makers to identify eHealth literacy needs and inform the development of eHealth interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyTelemedicineHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslationsDigital healtheHealthHealth literacyPsychometricsQuestionnaire designTranslation

Identifiers

PMID37254148
PMCPMC10227819

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.