ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Choosing the Best Digital Health Literacy Measure for Research: 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. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of eHealth literacy in adult populations.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Examining the relationship between health literacy and eHealth literacy in adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health promotion international · 2025Pooled it
- Trust in Digital Sexual Health Information Among Chinese College Students: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Usage and Perceptions of Electronic Patient Records Experienced by Users and Nonusers in the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Explainable Machine Learning for Assessing Digital Health Literacy in Older Adults: Validation and Development of a Two-Stage Model Integrating Performance-Based and Self-Assessed Indicators.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Understanding digital health literacy as a structural determinant of health and public health capability.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- AI health literacy as a foundation for responsible AI in healthcare: a framework for trustworthy implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- The influencing factors and generation path of digital health literacy among adolescents: evidence from 18 provinces in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Revised Multidimensional Digital Health Literacy Scale: Secondary Analysis Using Cross-Sectional Data From the 2022 GetCheckedOnline Community Survey In British Columbia, Canada.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patient acceptance of video consultations in cardiology.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Training Gaps in Digital Skills for the Cancer Health Care Workforce Based on Insights From Clinical Professionals, Nonclinical Professionals, and Patients and Caregivers: Qualitative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- eHealth Literacy Assessment Instruments: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- What might influence the elderly willingness to participate in "shared elderly care"? A mixed methods study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Digital health literacy-a key factor in realizing the value of digital transformation in healthcare.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Developing a digital health competency assessment framework for public health services: a Delphi-AHP approach.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Why, how, and whether to assess digital health literacy.Digital healthArticle
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 global demographic shift towards longer life expectancy and complex health needs is increasing the number of people with chronic diseases, placing pressure on health and care systems. With the digitalization of healthcare, digital Health Literacy (dHL), or the use of digital skills in health, is gaining importance. It involves navigating digital health information, using digital tools effectively, and making informed health decisions. Measuring dHL can help identify gaps and develop strategies to improve dHL and health, ensuring citizens equal opportunity to participate in a digital healthcare system. The European project "The Improving Digital Empowerment for Active and Healthy Living (IDEAHL)" with the objective to empower European Union citizens to use digital instruments to take a more active role in managing their health and well-being creates the base for this overview.
objectiveThis paper aims to conduct an overview of existing assessment tools for measuring dHL and recommend strategies for choosing relevant assessment tools.
methodsThis study was carried out as a mixed method study initiated by a scoping review (10 scientific databases, 14 databases with grey literature and 14 predefined reports) in addition to three papers published after finalisations the literature search in IDEAHL, followed by a qualitative workshop study and a final analysis combining results.
resultsThe literature search resulted in 33 papers on dHL instruments, that was analyzed together with three recently published reviews and findings from a workshop with 13 champions (understood as professionals with expertise in HL and dHL) from five countries (Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, and Germany) representing the health sector or health literacy research. Future tools should adapt to the latest trends and technologies, considering attitudes towards digital health and trust in its services. They should identify beneficiaries of digital health services, measure the impact of dHL interventions, and objectively evaluate functional skills. These tools should be evidence-based, validate instruments, interpret dHL results, and capture diverse experiences to reveal health behaviour changes.
conclusionsThe eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), despite being the most frequently utilized tool, has limitations in scope and adaptability. Future tools need to reflect digital trends, encompassing individual skills. However, it is important to note that the 'adequacy' of dHL is context-specific and relies on healthcare systems and the technology provided, particularly the user interface. The focus should be on health improvement, not just elevating dHL levels. A comprehensive approach to dHL assessments addressing diversity and relevance is crucial. Ethical considerations in dHL, including privacy and data security, are important due to potential feelings of shame among those with low literacy levels.
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.