SynthesisBMC public health2026
Effectiveness of health literacy interventions using digital communications in the European Union: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 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
Abstract
backgroundLimited health literacy competencies are linked to adverse health outcomes and increased utilization of healthcare resources. Growing awareness of the importance of health literacy has spurred a number or recent studies exploring interventions that leverage digital communication tools across Europe. These tools-including web-based health information resources, digital games, and mobile health applications-have gained widespread popularity due to their potential to reach diverse populations at scale. The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess recent empirical evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions that use digital communication tools within the European Union.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on health literacy interventions published between 2018 and 2024 and indexed in PubMed. To be eligible, studies had to focus on health literacy interventions implemented in European Union countries, utilize a controlled study design, and report measurable outcomes. We screened 3,911 records based on abstracts or full texts, resulting in the inclusion of 26 studies that employed digital communication tools to enhance health literacy.
resultsThe interventions showed varying effectiveness in improving the health literacy levels of the target population. Mobile apps and patient decision aids demonstrated some potential, whereas digital learning tools and multimedia interventions were largely ineffective. Overall, interventions using digital communication tools showed potential for improving knowledge, at least in the short term. Mobile apps proved effective in improving health status, with sustained effects at follow-ups. Digital learning tools also showed promise in enhancing health status for patients. Regarding self-efficacy, mobile apps were more efficient than other tools, although the evidence was somewhat mixed. Multi-component interventions were generally not more effective than single-component interventions in improving patient outcomes, despite the greater effort involved. Although the evidence was limited, it suggested that individuals with lower socioeconomic status benefited equally from interventions using digital communication tools in the European Union.
conclusionsInterventions leveraging digital communication are unlikely to be sufficient on their own to substantially improve baseline health literacy. However, they can effectively improve patient knowledge and, in some cases, health outcomes, and should therefore be utilized for these purposes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42897531What 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.