ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
How Do Scholars Conceptualize and Conduct Health and Digital Health Literacy Research? Survey of Federally Funded Scholars.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of health literacy (HL) is constantly evolving, and social determinants of health (SDoH) have been receiving considerable attention in public health scholarship. Since a 1-size-fits-all approach for HL fails to account for multiple contextual factors and as a result poses challenges in improving literacy levels, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the current state of HL and digital health literacy (DHL) research.
objectiveThis study examined scholars' conceptualization and scope of work focused on HL and DHL.
methodsUsing a search string, investigators (N=2042) focusing on HL, DHL, or both were identified from the grantee websites of the National Institutes of Health RePORTER (RePORT Expenditures and Results) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators were emailed a survey via Qualtrics. Survey questions examined the focus of work; whether the investigators studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH; the frameworks, definitions, and approaches used; and research settings. We analyzed survey data using SPSS Statistics version 28 and descriptive analysis, including frequencies and percentages, was conducted. Chi-square tests were performed to explore the association between the focus of work, settings, and age groups included in the investigators' research.
resultsA total of 193 (9.5%) of 2042 investigators responded to the online survey. Most investigators (76/153, 49.7%) were from public health, 83/193 (43%) reported their research focused on HL alone, 46/193 (23.8%) mentioned DHL, and 64/193 (33.2%) mentioned both. The majority (133/153, 86.9%) studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH, 106/135 (78.5%) conducted HL/DHL work in a community setting, and 100/156 (64.1%) reported not using any specific definition to guide their work. Digital tools (89/135, 65.9%), plain-language materials (82/135, 60.7%), and visual guides (56/135, 41.5%) were the top 3 approaches used. Most worked with adults (131/139, 94.2%) and all races and ethnicities (47/121, 38.8%).
conclusionsHL and DHL research largely considered SDoH. Multiple HL tools and approaches were used that support the examination and improvement of literacy and communication surrounding health care issues.
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.