Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40598936›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2025

Digital tools to promote or measure health literacy in children aged 3-5 years: scoping review.

Caron Molster, Jennifer Irvine, Amanda Devine, Ruth Wallace, Lennie Barblett, Leesa Costello

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Caron MolsterSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia.ORCID 0009-0002-5229-7531
Jennifer IrvineSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-8573-2452
Amanda DevineSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6978-6249
Ruth WallaceSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5392-5195
Lennie BarblettAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, QUT Kelvin Grove Campus, E Block, Level 4, Room 410, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0510-2244
Leesa CostelloSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1139-3228

Funding

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health literacy is a determinant of health that should be promoted and measured in early childhood. In the era of digitalization, this could involve digital platforms. However, little knowledge exists on the extent, range, and nature of literature on digital tools for promoting or measuring young children's health literacy. Addressing this gap, a scoping review was undertaken to explore what digital health literacy tools for children aged 3-5 years could be identified in the literature, what their key features were, how they were designed, whether children were codesigners, and whether the tools had been evaluated. Eligibility criteria included the literature being peer-reviewed, published between 2013 and 2024, and in English. Nine health and education databases were searched, and 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. Few of the reported tools covered the core dimensions of health literacy, underlying the need for digital tools that promote and/or measure young children's health-related knowledge and information-related skills. There was sparse description of design approaches, and little evidence children were engaged as active design partners, which is critical to address. Encouragingly, some evidence was usually provided to rationalize choices around specific digital technologies and/or design features, which could be further bolstered with evidence from the field of educational technology for children. There is strength in the literature's reporting of evaluation studies using well-respected design approaches; however, sample sizes were sometimes small, long-term follow-up did not often occur, and the influence of contextual factors on children's use of the tools was not explored.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyHealth LiteracyHealth PromotionChild, PreschoolHumanschildrenhealth educationhealth literacyinterventionreview

Identifiers

PMID40598936
PMCPMC12214018

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.