Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39849354›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2025

Effectiveness of eHealth literacy interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies.

Chiara Barbati, Elvira Maranesi, Cinzia Giammarchi, Matteo Lenge, Manila Bonciani, Elisa Barbi, Giacomo Pietro Vigezzi, Mauro Dragoni, Tania Bailoni, Anna Odone and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Web-Based Physiotherapy Resources for Bronchiectasis: Evaluation of Content, Quality, and Implementation Evidence.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

11 authors.

Chiara Barbati *Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Elvira Maranesi *Scientific Direction, IRCSS INRCA, Ancona, Italy. e.maranesi@inrca.it.
Cinzia GiammarchiScientific Direction, IRCSS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
Matteo LengeMeyer Children's Hospital IRCCS, Florence, Italy.
Manila BoncianiMeyer Children's Hospital IRCCS, Florence, Italy.
Elisa BarbiMeyer Children's Hospital IRCCS, Florence, Italy. elisa.barbi@meyer.it.
Giacomo Pietro VigezziDepartment of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Mauro DragoniIntelligent Digital Agents (IDA) Research Group, Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK), Trento, Italy.
Tania BailoniIntelligent Digital Agents (IDA) Research Group, Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK), Trento, Italy.
Anna Odone *Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. anna.odone@unipv.it.
Roberta Bevilacqua *Scientific Direction, IRCSS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.

Funding

Ministero della Salute PNC-E3-2022-23683267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundeHealth Literacy (eHL) is a set of competencies and skills encompassing the knowledge, comfort and perceived ability to identify, evaluate and apply electronic health information to health problems. Given its role in the appropriate use of health technologies, ensuring equitable access to health information and improving patient outcomes, this study aims to systematically retrieve, qualitatively and quantitative pool and critically appraise available experimental evidence on the effectiveness of eHL interventions across different population groups.

methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov, including original experimental studies quantifying the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing eHL, as assessed by the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) or other validated scales. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis comparing changes in eHL levels before and after the interventions, and between the intervention and control groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using I

resultsOut of the 504 studies retrieved, 15 studies conducted between 2011 and 2023 met the inclusion criteria. Target populations of eHL interventions included adults in 7 studies, older people in 5 and young people in 4. The meta-analysis included 10 studies that used the eHEALS. Participants showed a mean increase in eHEALS scores of 5.81 points (95% CI = 3.36-8.26, N = 1025) following the eHL interventions compared to the pre-intervention period. In the analysis between the intervention and control groups, we found a statistically significant difference in eHL improvement in favour of the intervention group, with mean eHEALS scores 3.62 points (95% CI = 1.63-5.60, N = 1258) higher in the intervention group than in the control groups. Subgroup analyses by intervention type, stratified by Collaborative Learning (CL) or Individualistic Learning (IL) showed significant increases in eHealth Literacy in the pre-post intervention analysis (CL: UMD = 5.19, CI = 0.01-10.38, N = 402; IL: UMD = 6.05; CI = 3.14-8.97, N = 623) and in the intervention vs. control analysis in the IL group (DMD = 4.98; CI = 1.77-8.12, N = 540).

conclusionsOur findings support the effectiveness of tailored interventions in significantly enhancing eHL, providing key insights for evidence-based intervention design targeted to different population groups.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyTelemedicineHumansDigital healthDigital health literacyeHealth literacyeHealth literacy interventions

Identifiers

PMID39849354
PMCPMC11755798

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.