Digital Health Literacy in Patients With Common Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Digital health technology (DHT) plays an increasingly vital role in managing chronic diseases by enabling patients to actively manage their health. These tools have been shown to improve self-management and adherence to medical advice. However, for DHT to be fully effective, patients with chronic conditions must be digitally literate. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), an 8‑item tool with scores ranging from 8 to 40, was developed to assess individuals' perceived ability to find, evaluate, and apply digital health information. Assessing patients' digital health literacy (DHL) and understanding the factors influencing it are essential for improving the accessibility and usability of health resources. Objective: This study aimed to assess DHL in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review and meta‑analysis using eHEALS. We sought to determine average DHL scores, examine demographic and socioeconomic factors influencing DHL, and explore its impact on disease management to inform future strategies for enhancing DHL and improving chronic disease outcomes. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review across 7 databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, Library Literature and Information Science Index, and Google Scholar) from inception to August 14, 2022, with an updated search in October 2024. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with DM, hypertension, or RA who reported DHL data using eHEALS (8-40) and were original research published in English. Exclusion criteria included studies involving participants younger than 18 years, reviews, meta‑analyses, studies not addressing the target diseases, or non‑English publications. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle‑Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Eight studies involving 2527 participants were included. The pooled mean eHEALS score was 27.03 (95% CI 25.08-28.98), indicating high overall DHL. Stratified by disease, scores were higher for DM (27.79) and hypertension (28.48) but lower for RA (24.74). Quality assessment indicated a high standard of included studies. Factors influencing DHL included age, education, employment, and perception of the internet as a health resource. Due to the limited number of studies, meta‑regression analysis could not be performed. Conclusions: DHL is critical for individuals with chronic conditions, empowering them to make informed decisions and manage their health effectively. However, the scarcity of studies limits comprehensive analysis of DHL determinants. While the internet offers abundant health information, unequal DHL and health skills remain barriers. More inclusive research is needed to fully understand DHL's impact on health outcomes and mitigate disparities, ensuring equitable access to digital health resources and improving disease management.