ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Digital health literacy among people with bipolar disorder in Germany - a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study assesses digital health literacy (DHL) among individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) in Germany, employing Sørensen's Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted comprising 212 individuals with self-reported BD. DHL was assessed using the HL-DIGI instrument in addition to SIMHL factors including: structural (gender, employment status), situational (manic and depressive symptomatology), and technology use factors (use of health-related websites). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to model DHL as a latent variable. Results: DHL followed a bimodal distribution, with participants clustering at either low (33.5%) or high (31.6%) levels. Evaluating reliability of online health information and using it to solve health-related tasks proved to be the most challenging. SEM demonstrated overall adequate model fit with higher DHL significantly associated with male gender, being employed and use of health-related websites. Discussion: In line with SIMHL, DHL in individuals with BD is shaped by structural and access-related factors rather than illness severity. Gender, employment status, and engagement with health-related websites emerged as key correlates. Conclusion: DHL in BD is not uniformly lower compared to the general population, underlining the feasibility of digital interventions as a promising pillar of care. At the same time, substantial heterogeneity highlights the need for routine DHL screening and tailored support for subgroups with lower skills. Future interventions and studies should systematically stratify by DHL level and target higher-order skills such as evaluating reliability and decision-making, in order to ensure equitable access and maximize the benefits of digital mental health care.
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.