ArticleBMC health services research2026
eHealth literacy in emergency care: a scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rise of online health information (OHI), eHealth literacy has become increasingly important. The e-health literacy framework (eHLF) categorizes key skills necessary for effective eHealth literacy. Patients' limited health literacy correlates with preventable, non-urgent emergency department (ED) visits, contributing to overcrowding, increased costs, and stress among healthcare professionals. However, the role of eHealth literacy in the ED remains unclear. Understanding its impact is essential to provide insight into overcrowding and internet use in the ED. This scoping review aimed to investigate eHealth literacy in emergency care.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). An initial literature search was conducted in March 2024, followed by a systematic literature search in May 2024 using the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid, supplemented by Google Scholar, reference lists, and library sources. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined based on the PCC mnemonic. After study selection, the studies were critically appraised by two researchers using JBI checklists. Data was extracted and presented both narratively and in tabular form.
resultsNine studies were evaluated, and results were categorized as "individual", "interaction", and "system" based on the eHLF. The primary objectives were to examine internet use before ED visits and its correlations with anxiety and cyberchondria - excessive online searching leading to unfounded concerns about physical health. Findings showed widespread internet use for health-related information, though most did not use it to decide whether to visit the ED. Some studies found increased searching correlated with anxiety and cyberchondria. Other aspects included the effect on the doctor-patient relationship, trust, access and understandability of OHI.
conclusionInternet use before ED visits is common and access to digital services is widespread. Some studies link increased internet searches to higher cyberchondria and impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. However, gaps remain in tailored digital devices and understanding eHealth literacy's association with demographic factors. Both patients and healthcare providers in the ED require education on using OHI. Health professionals should acknowledge internet use before ED visits and discuss online findings with patients. Government guidelines and support programs should help users make informed health decisions.
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.