ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Development and Validation of the Digital Health Literacy Questionnaire for Stroke Survivors: Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn China, there is limited research on digital health literacy (DHL) among patients with stroke. This is mainly due to the lack of validated tools, which hinders the precision and sustainability of our country's digital transformation.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a DHL scale specifically for stroke survivors in China.
methodsWe used a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods approach to develop a DHL questionnaire for stroke survivors. This study comprised 418 patients with stroke aged 18 years and older. To evaluate the questionnaire's psychometric qualities, we randomly assigned individuals to 2 groups (subsample 1: n=118, subsample 2: n=300). Construct validity was evaluated through internal consistency analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, hypothesis testing for structural validity, measurement invariance assessments using the eHealth Literacy Scale, and Rasch analyses to determine the questionnaire's validity and reliability.
resultsThis study underwent 4 stages of systematic development. The initial pool of items contained 25 items, 5 of which were eliminated after content validity testing; 19 items were subsequently retained through cognitive interviews. After an interitem correlation analysis, 2 more items were excluded, leaving 17 items for exploratory factor analysis. Finally, 2 items were excluded by Rasch analysis, resulting in a final version of the questionnaire containing 15 items. The total score range of the scale was 15-75, with higher scores indicating greater DHL competence. Results showed that principal component analysis confirmed the theoretical structure of the questionnaire (69.212% explained variance). The factor model fit was good with χ
conclusionsThe DHL Questionnaire for Stroke Survivors is a reliable and valid measure to assess DHL among stroke survivors in China.
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.