ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2026
Health Literacy Recommendations for Digital Mental Health Treatments.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the impact and acceptability of a mental health literacy course for UK university students: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Intention to Use Digital Mental Health Interventions Among AANHPI Emerging Adults in the United States: Application of the Seeking Mental Health Care Model.Research square · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital mental health (dMH) treatments have garnered much attention for increasing access to treatment, yet real-world engagement with these treatments remains a challenge. In upscaling these treatments, we need to ensure that they are equitable and do not exclude groups who already experience inequities in health care, such as people with lower health literacy.
objectiveTo co-develop recommendations for the design and delivery of dMH treatments for people with a variety of health literacy levels.
methodsDrafted recommendations were based on a thematic analysis of 357 free-text comments (likes, dislikes/other suggestions) from 213 people ( KEY
resultsThe co-development process resulted in seven final recommendations: (1) Focus on informative and practical content; (2) Prioritize accessibility and ease of use; (3) Structure content in a progressive, layered way; (4) Enhance interactivity and engagement; (5) Employ strategies to enhance motivation and accountability; (6) Consider participants' emotional wellbeing; (7) Incorporate diverse modes of delivering content. Most recommendations were based on comments from people with lower and higher health literacy.
conclusionsThese recommendations advance both research and practice by outlining a flexible and practical framework for dMH treatment developers and service providers to meet the preferences and needs of people with diverse health literacy strengths and needs. Further research is needed to determine the feasibility and impact of implementing these recommendations across different dMH treatment delivery formats, settings, and populations.
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.