Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42414801›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026

The Effects of a Short Video Intervention on Digital Health Literacy Skills: An Online Randomised Controlled Trial.

Kirsten McCaffery, Claire Hudson, Diana Vassilenko, Jenna Smith, Lucia Marcello, Tara Haynes, Jessica Stokes Parish, Kirsten Ingwersen, Danielle Muscat, Melody Taba

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kirsten McCafferySydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. kirsten.mccaffery@sydney.edu.au.
Claire HudsonSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0954-0722
Diana VassilenkoSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jenna SmithSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucia MarcelloSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tara HaynesSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jessica Stokes ParishBond University Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Kirsten IngwersenSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Danielle MuscatSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Melody TabaSydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP2016719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media has an influence on public health communication. There are growing concerns about digital health literacy, and how younger adults find good-quality health information online, and their ability to use and appraise it.

objectiveTo test a digital health literacy intervention addressing critical appraisal of online health information for younger adults focused on three core elements: Who said it? When did they say it? Why did they say it?

designParticipants were randomised to receive the intervention via one of three formats: (1) a short-animated video, (2) a TikTok-style short video, (3) literacy-sensitive written text, or (4) a control group. The primary outcomes were critical digital health literacy (critical DHL) and engagement. The secondary outcomes were digital health literacy (DHL) measured by eHEALS, acceptability, personal relevance, intentions to share and novelty.

participantsParticipants aged 18-39 were recruited via an online social research panel. KEY

resultsThe sample (n = 2124) included 54% women; 50% had no university qualifications and 30% reported inadequate health literacy. The critical DHL mean score was significantly higher across intervention arms compared to control: control 8.5 out of 19 (SD4.7); text 11.0 (SD4.5); animation 10.9 (SD4.6); TikTok 10.4 (SD4.7) (p < 0.001). Engagement showed no significant differences across arms. All intervention arms increased eHEALS scores compared to control (p < 0.001). Acceptability and intention to share were high across all interventions (scored > 16/21 and > 3/5, respectively). Text scored highest on personal relevance (p = 0.003) and animation scored highest in novelty (p = 0.054) compared to TikTok. There was an interaction effect with gender with TikTok and text intervention arms showing a greater impact on men than women compared to control (p = 0.010).

conclusionsBrief, scalable social media-style interventions can support critical health literacy skills in younger people. Further research is needed to understand how different formats perform in real-world social media environments.

trial registrationProspectively registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: trial number ACTRN12623001229662, trial registration date: 29/11/2023.

Indexed as

critical health literacydigital educationdigital health literacymisinformationscience communicationsocial media

Identifiers

PMID42414801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.