ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Assessing Electronic Health Literacy in Individuals With the Post-COVID-19 Condition Using the German Revised eHealth Literacy Scale: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Gender disparities in eHealth literacy among Chinese university students and their decomposition.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Relationship between digital health literacy and self-assessment of health among older adults in Xuzhou City: based on the mediating effect of health self-management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Decomposition and Comparative Analysis of Urban-Rural Disparities in eHealth Literacy Among Chinese University Students: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) is a widely used instrument for measuring eHealth literacy (eHL). However, little is known so far about whether the instrument is valid for the assessment of eHL in persons who are affected by the post-COVID-19 condition. This is particularly important as people with the post-COVID-19 condition are frequently affected by false information from the internet.
objectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the German Revised eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS) in individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from January to May 2022. The self-assessment survey consisted of the GR-eHEALS, health status- and internet use-related variables, sociodemographic data, and (post)-COVID-19-related medical data. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlational analyses, and tests of measurement invariance were deployed.
resultsIn total, 330 participants were included in the statistical analyses. CFA revealed that the 2-factor model reached an excellent model fit (comparative fit index=1.00, Tucker-Lewis index=0.99, root mean square error of approximation=0.036, standardized root mean square residual=0.038). Convergent validity was confirmed by significant positive correlations between eHL and knowledge of internet-based health promotion programs, experience in using these programs, and the duration of private internet use. In addition, a significantly negative relationship of eHL with internet anxiety supported convergent validity. Further, significant relationships of eHL with mental health status and internal health locus of control confirmed the criterion validity of the instrument. However, relationships of eHL with physical health status and quality of life could not be confirmed. The 2-factor model was fully measurement invariant regarding gender. Regarding age and educational level, partial measurement invariance was confirmed. The subscales as well as the overall GR-eHEALS reached good-to-excellent reliability (Cronbach α≥.86).
conclusionsThe GR-eHEALS is a reliable and largely valid instrument for assessing eHL in individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition. Measurement invariance regarding gender was fully confirmed and allows the interpretation of group differences. Regarding age and educational level, group differences should be interpreted with caution. Given the high likelihood that individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition will be confronted with misinformation on the Internet, eHL is a core competency that is highly relevant in this context, in both research and clinical practice. Therefore, future research should also explore alternative instruments to capture eHL to overcome shortcomings in the validity of the GR-eHEALS.
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.