ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Cross-national validation of digital health engagement scales: evidence from 30 countries.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Structural Inequalities in Online Health Information Seeking: Cross-National Multilevel Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Navigating digital health: Development and validation of the online health information seeking scale (OHISS).International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Reliable cross-national measurement of digital health engagement is essential for understanding how populations use online health information and for monitoring digital health inequalities. Yet standardized and psychometrically validated tools suitable for international surveys remain scarce. Methods: Using representative data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) Results: Both scales showed satisfactory internal consistency ( Conclusion: DHUS provides a robust cross-national measure of attitudinal aspects of digital health engagement, while GOHIE highlights the context-sensitive nature of behavioral online health information seeking and points to directions for future refinement. Cross-national analyses should examine country-specific parameters and apply approximate or partial invariance frameworks. These validated indicators establish a methodological foundation for monitoring digital health engagement and advancing equitable, evidence-based public health communication.
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.