Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37875882›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2023

eHealth literacy among hospital health care providers: a systematic review.

Gunhild Brørs, Marie Hamilton Larsen, Linn Benjaminsen Hølvold, Astrid K Wahl

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. eHealth Literacy and Knowledge of Social Health Financing Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Kenya.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Gunhild BrørsClinic of Cardiology, St. Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, P.O. box 3250, Torgarden, Trondheim, NO-7006, Norway. Gunhild.Brors@stolav.no.
Marie Hamilton LarsenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggatat 15, Oslo, NO-0456, Norway.
Linn Benjaminsen HølvoldUniversity Library, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Universitetstunet 3, Ås, NO-1433, Norway.
Astrid K WahlDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Oslo, P.O.box 1084, Blindern, Oslo, NO-0317, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundeHealth literacy is a key concept in the implementation of eHealth resources. However, most eHealth literacy definitions and frameworks are designed from the perceptive of the individual receiving eHealth care, which do not include health care providers' eHealth literacy or acceptance of delivering eHealth resources.

aimsTo identify existing research on eHealth literacy domains and measurements and identify eHealth literacy scores and associated factors among hospital health care providers.

methodsThis systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, AMED and Web of Science. Quantitative studies assessing eHealth literacy with original research, targeting hospital health care providers were included. Three eHealth literacy domains based on the eHealth literacy framework were defined a priori; (1) Individual eHealth literacy, (2) Interaction with the eHealth system, and (3) Access to the system. Pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility, appraised methodological quality and extracted data.

resultsFourteen publications, of which twelve publications were conducted in non-Western countries, were included. In total, 3,666 health care providers within eleven different professions were included, with nurses being the largest group. Nine of the included studies used the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) to measure eHealth literacy, representing the domain of individual eHealth literacy. A minority of the studies covered domains such as interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. The mean eHEALS score in the studies ranged from 27.8 to 31.7 (8-40), indicating a higher eHealth literacy. One study reported desirable eHealth literacy based on the Digital Health Literacy Instrument. Another study reported a relatively high score on the Staff eHealth literacy questionnaire. eHealth literacy was associated with socio-demographic factors, experience of technology, health behaviour and work-related factors.

conclusionsHealth care providers have good individual eHealth literacy. However, more research is needed on the eHealth literacy domains dependent on interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. Furthermore, most studies were conducted in Eastern and Central-Africa, and more research is thus needed in a Western context.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022363039).

Indexed as

Health LiteracyTelemedicineHealth BehaviorHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37875882
PMCPMC10599073

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.