Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37663344›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Childhood environmental harshness and unpredictability negatively predict eHealth literacy through fast life-history strategy.

Wenfei Feng, Jinguang Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wenfei FengSchool of Journalism and Communication, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Jinguang ZhangSchool of Journalism and Communication, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: eHealth literacy-the ability to obtain, understand, evaluate, and use health information from the Internet-is important to maintaining and improving personal health. Prior research found that people differ notably in the levels of eHealth literacy, and this study tests a theoretical account of some of those individual differences. Drawing on life history theory, we propose that low eHealth literacy is partly the outcome of people adopting a resource-allocation strategy emphasizing early and fast reproduction, namely, a fast life-history strategy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study ( Results: Supporting a life-history explanation of eHealth literacy, childhood environmental harshness and unpredictability negatively predicted eHealth literacy through fast life-history strategy and mainly the insight-planning-control dimension of it. Harshness, not unpredictability, also directly and negatively predicted eHealth literacy after fast life-history strategy was controlled for. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the psychological mechanisms associated with human life-history strategies produce at least some of the individual differences in levels of eHealth literacy, including those related to neuroticism, socioeconomic status, self-rated health and social capital. Thus, a possible way to increase future generation's eHealth literacy and thereby their health is to reduce the harshness and unpredictability of the environment in which they grow up, thereby making them more likely to adopt a relatively slow life-history in their adulthood.

Indexed as

eHEALSeHealth literacyenvironmental harshnessenvironmental unpredictabilitylife history theory

Identifiers

PMID37663344
PMCPMC10473102
OpenAlexW4385977788

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.