Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37824584›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2023

Digital literacy as a new determinant of health: A scoping review.

Maria Del Pilar Arias López, Bradley A Ong, Xavier Borrat Frigola, Ariel L Fernández, Rachel S Hicklent, Arianne J T Obeles, Aubrey M Rocimo, Leo A Celi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 239 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
239citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

239 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

179 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Maria Del Pilar Arias LópezIntermediate Care Unit. Hospital de Niños Ricardo Gutierrez Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4881-4743
Bradley A OngDepartment of Neurology, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6507-1967
Xavier Borrat FrigolaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care. Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9348-9284
Ariel L FernándezArgentine Society of Intensive Care. Management, Quality and Data Committee Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4438-8743
Rachel S HicklentResearch Medical Library, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas United States of America.
Arianne J T ObelesCollege of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4087-3511
Aubrey M RocimoCollege of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3914-8996
Leo A CeliLaboratory for Computational Physiology, Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-6626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHarnessing new digital technologies can improve access to health care but can also widen the health divide for those with poor digital literacy. This scoping review aims to assess the current situation of low digital health literacy in terms of its definition, reach, impact on health and interventions for its mitigation.

methodsA comprehensive literature search strategy was composed by a qualified medical librarian. Literature databases [Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Google Scholar] were queried using appropriate natural language and controlled vocabulary terms along with hand-searching and citation chaining. We focused on recent and highly cited references published in English. Reviews were excluded. This scoping review was conducted following the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley.

resultsA total of 268 articles were identified (263 from the initial search and 5 more added from the references of the original papers), 53 of which were finally selected for full text analysis. Digital health literacy is the most frequently used descriptor to refer to the ability to find and use health information with the goal of addressing or solving a health problem using technology. The most utilized tool to assess digital health literacy is the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS), a self-reported measurement tool that evaluates six core dimensions and is available in various languages. Individuals with higher digital health literacy scores have better self-management and participation in their own medical decisions, mental and psychological state and quality of life. Effective interventions addressing poor digital health literacy included education/training and social support.

conclusionsAlthough there is interest in the study and impact of poor digital health literacy, there is still a long way to go to improve measurement tools and find effective interventions to reduce the digital health divide.

Identifiers

PMID37824584
PMCPMC10569540

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.