Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39453891›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

An integrative systematic review on interventions to improve layperson's ability to identify trustworthy digital health information.

Hind Mohamed, Esme Kittle, Nehal Nour, Ruba Hamed, Kaylem Feeney, Jon Salsberg, Dervla Kelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Susceptibility of cancer patients and caregivers to online cancer misinformation: a qualitative interview study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Hind MohamedSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2564-5935
Esme KittleSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.
Nehal NourSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.
Ruba HamedSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.
Kaylem FeeneySchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9200-314X
Jon SalsbergSchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2010-3691
Dervla KellySchool of Medicine, University of Limerick, Co. Limerick, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health information on the Internet has a ubiquitous influence on health consumers' behaviour. Searching and evaluating online health information poses a real challenge for many health consumers. To our knowledge, our systematic review paper is the first to explore the interventions targeting lay people to improve their e-health literacy skills. Our paper aims to explore interventions to improve laypeople ability to identify trustworthy online health information. The search was conducted on Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, Academic Search Complete, and APA psych info. Publications were selected by screening title, abstract, and full text, then manual review of reference lists of selected publications. Data was extracted from eligible studies on an excel sheet about the types of interventions, the outcomes of the interventions and whether they are effective, and the barriers and facilitators for using the interventions by consumers. A mixed-methods appraisal tool was used to appraise evidence from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review approach was used as a guidance for narrative synthesis. The total number of included studies is twelve. Media literacy interventions are the most common type of interventions. Few studies measured the effect of the interventions on patient health outcomes. All the procedural and navigation/ evaluation skills-building interventions are significantly effective. Computer/internet illiteracy and the absence of guidance/facilitators are significant barriers to web-based intervention use. Few interventions are distinguished by its implementation in a context tailored to consumers, using a human-centred design approach, and delivery through multiple health stakeholders' partnership. There is potential for further research to understand how to improve consumers health information use focusing on collaborative learning, using human-centred approaches, and addressing the social determinants of health.

Identifiers

PMID39453891
PMCPMC11508166

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.