Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39511667›Full record

SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2024

The level of electronic health literacy among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xin Jiang, Lushan Wang, Yingjie Leng, Ruonan Xie, Chengxiang Li, Zhuomiao Nie, Daiqing Liu, Guorong Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

8 authors.

Xin Jiang *Department of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Lushan Wang *The Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Longquanyi, Chengdu, 610100, China.
Yingjie LengDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Ruonan XieDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Chengxiang LiDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Zhuomiao NieDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Daiqing LiuMedical College of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Guorong WangWest China School of Public Health and West China Fourth Hospital, West China Nursing School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. wangguorong@scu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of deeper integration of the internet and healthcare services, eHealth literacy levels have become an important predictor of public health outcomes and health-promoting behaviors. However, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of eHealth literacy levels among older adults.

objectiveTo systematically assess the level of eHealth literacy among older adults.

methodsWe conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Weipu Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Database (Sinomed) to collect survey studies on the eHealth literacy levels of the older adults, with a search timeframe from the establishment of the database to May 2024. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Additionally, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to detect sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to assess publication bias.

resultsA total of 48 relevant studies were included, including 45 cross-sectional, 2 cohort studies and 1 longitudinal study, comprising 33,919 older adults. The quality of the studies was all above moderate, with 10 high-quality publications. Meta-integration results showed that the eHealth literacy score of older adults was 21.45 (95% CI:19.81-23.08). Subgroup analysis showed that among the elderly population, females had lower eHealth literacy at 19.13 (95% CI:15.83-22.42), those aged 80 years and older had lower eHealth literacy at 16.55 (95% CI:11.73-21.38), and elderly individuals without a spouse and living alone had even lower eHealth literacy at 18.88 (95% CI:15.71-22.04) and 16.03 (95% CI:16.51-21.79). Based on region, eHealth literacy was lower among older adults in developing countries at 20.71 (95% CI:18.95-22.48). Meta-regression results indicate that sample size and region can significantly impact heterogeneity.

conclusionOur results found that the average eHealth literacy score of the elderly was 21.45, which was much lower than the passing level (≥ 32), suggesting that more attention should be paid to the eHealth literacy aspect of the elderly. Meanwhile, due to the limitation of the literature sources, the global representativeness of the results of this study still needs to be supported by more research data from other countries.

Indexed as

EHealth literacyMeta-analysisOlder adultsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39511667
PMCPMC11542313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.