ArticleBMC public health2023
Translation, cultural adaptation and validity assessment of the Dutch version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: a mixed-method approach.
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.
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
19 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
- Translation and Psychometric Validation of the Amharic eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Feasibility and Acceptability of Perfect Fit, a Virtual Coach-Based mHealth Intervention for Smoking Cessation and Physical Activity in Adults: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Screening the Digital Skills of Patients in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A checklist for translating and adapting questionnaires (CTAQ) in healthcare research: insights from a Delphi method approach.Tropical medicine and health · 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
- The impact of digital transformational leadership on digital intensity among primary healthcare entities: a moderated mediation model.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Review of Recent Developments and Advances.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- eHealth Literacy and the Use of NHS 111 Online Urgent Care Service in England: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability of a Health App Platform Providing Individuals With a Budget to Purchase Preselected Apps to Work on Their Health and Well-Being: Quantitative Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Spanish and Catalan Versions of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- 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
- Cultural adaptation of a self-review tool for health promoting universities in Bulgaria.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Preliminary validity testing of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ): a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Norwegian hospitalized patients.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Exploring digital health literacy clusters in a Norwegian stroke survivor population-A cross-sectional study (NORFAST).Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Article
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
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
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.