Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38381497›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

Digital Health Literacy of the Population in Germany and Its Association With Physical Health, Mental Health, Life Satisfaction, and Health Behaviors: Nationally Representative Survey Study.

Lars König, Adelheid Kuhlmey, Ralf Suhr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for Health Services Research and Practice - Part I].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Lars KönigInstitut für Medizinische Soziologie und Rehabilitationswissenschaft, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1450-8449
Adelheid KuhlmeyInstitut für Medizinische Soziologie und Rehabilitationswissenschaft, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4088-4675
Ralf SuhrInstitut für Medizinische Soziologie und Rehabilitationswissenschaft, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0830-8715

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health literacy, also known as eHealth literacy, describes the ability to seek, find, understand, and apply health information from the internet to address health problems. The World Health Organization calls for actions to improve digital health literacy. To develop target group-specific digital health literacy interventions, it is necessary to know the digital health literacy of the general population and relevant subgroups.

objectiveThis study aims to representatively assess the digital health literacy of the population in Germany and relevant subgroups. The results are meant to facilitate the development of target group-specific digital health literacy interventions. Additionally, this study further explores the associations between digital health literacy and physical health, mental health, life satisfaction, and diverse health behaviors.

methodsStudy participants were drawn from a representative panel of the German-speaking population with internet access. To further increase the representativeness of the sample, survey weights were calculated using an iterative proportional fitting procedure. Participants answered a series of questionnaires regarding their digital health literacy, physical health, mental health, life satisfaction, and diverse health behaviors. Two-sided independent sample t tests were conducted to determine the significant differences between societal subgroups. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to explore the correlates of digital health literacy.

resultsDigital health literacy is unevenly distributed within German society. The results of this study suggest that people with a low level of formal education and people with a low social status would benefit from digital health literacy interventions that address their competencies in the domains of information seeking and information appraisal. Furthermore, the results suggest that older people would likely benefit from digital health literacy interventions that address their competencies in the domains of information seeking and also information appraisal. Regarding sex, this study suggests that men might benefit from digital health literacy interventions that specifically address their competencies in the domain of information seeking. Furthermore, digital health literacy is weakly positively correlated with physical health, mental health, life satisfaction, exercise routines, fruit consumption, and vegetable consumption.

conclusionsOverall, the results of this study demonstrate that digital health literacy is associated with diverse health outcomes and behaviors. Furthermore, the results provide a starting point for the development of target group-specific digital health literacy interventions.

Indexed as

Digital HealthLiteracyAgedGermanyHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMental HealthPersonal Satisfactiondigital healthdigital health literacyeHealtheHealth literacyhealth behaviorshealth literacylife satisfactionmental healthphysical healthrepresentative survey

Identifiers

PMID38381497
PMCPMC10918546

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.