ArticlePLOS digital health2024
An integrative systematic review on interventions to improve layperson's ability to identify trustworthy digital health information.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- mHealth-Supported Perioperative Care for Family Caregivers of Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy and/or Adenoidectomy (TONAPP): Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Trust in Digital Sexual Health Information Among Chinese College Students: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Trust, Information Appraisal, and Health Communication Behaviours Among People Living with Multiple Sclerosis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Article
- What Patients With Asthma Share When No One Listens: Multimethod Observational Study of Patient Narratives on Reddit.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- The NutriLight framework: a novel approach to evaluating sustainable and healthy diets.Journal of nutritional science · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring Health Literacy Heterogeneity in Prehypertension: Tailored Intervention Strategies Based on Latent Profile Analysis.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.