Performance-Based Measurement of eHealth Literacy: Systematic Scoping Review

被引:6
作者
Crocker, Bradley [1 ,2 ]
Feng, Olivia [1 ]
Duncan, Lindsay R. [1 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Dept Kinesiol & Phys Educ, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Dept Kinesiol & Phys Educ, 475 Pine Ave, Montreal, PQ H2W 1S4, Canada
关键词
eHealth literacy; measurement; performance-based; eHealth Literacy Scale; eHEALS; scoping review; review method; health literacy; library science; librarian; search strategy; HEALTH INFORMATION-SEEKING; SOCIAL MEDIA; OLDER-ADULTS; ONLINE; SEARCH; SKILLS; BENEFITS; ABILITY; WEB;
D O I
10.2196/44602
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: eHealth literacy describes the ability to locate, comprehend, evaluate, and apply web-based health information to a health problem. In studies of eHealth literacy, researchers have primarily assessed participants' perceived eHealth literacy using a short self-report instrument, for which ample research has shown little to no association with actual performed eHealth-related skills. Performance-based measures of eHealth literacy may be more effective at assessing actual eHealth skills, yet such measures seem to be scarcer in the literature. Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to identify tools that currently exist to measure eHealth literacy based on objective performance. A secondary purpose of this study was to characterize the prevalence of performance-based measurement of eHealth literacy in the literature compared with subjective measurement. Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature, aligning with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist, in 3 stages: conducting the search, screening articles, and extracting data into a summary table. The summary table includes terminology for eHealth literacy, description of participants, instrument design, health topics used, and a brief note on the evidence of validity for each performance-based measurement tool. A total of 1444 unique articles retrieved from 6 relevant databases (MEDLINE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Library and Information Science Abstracts [LISA]; Library, Information Science &Technology Abstracts [LISTA]; and Education Resources Information Center [ERIC]) were considered for inclusion, of which 313 (21.68%) included a measure of eHealth literacy.Results: Among the 313 articles that included a measure of eHealth literacy, we identified 33 (10.5%) that reported on 29 unique performance-based eHealth literacy measurement tools. The types of tools ranged from having participants answer health-related questions using the internet, having participants engage in simulated internet tasks, and having participants evaluate website quality to quizzing participants on their knowledge of health and the web-based health information-seeking process. In addition, among the 313 articles, we identified 280 (89.5%) that measured eHealth literacy using only a self-rating tool. Conclusions: This study is the first research synthesis looking specifically at performance-based measures of eHealth literacy and may direct researchers toward existing performance-based measurement tools to be applied in future projects. We discuss some of the key benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to performance-based measurement of eHealth literacy. Researchers with an interest in gauging participants' actual eHealth literacy (as opposed to perceived eHealth literacy) should make efforts to incorporate tools such as those identified in this systematic scoping review.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Differences in the Level of Electronic Health Literacy Between Users and Nonusers of Digital Health Services: An Exploratory Survey of a Group of Medical Outpatients [J].
Adellund, Kamila ;
Karnoe, Astrid ;
Overgaard, Dorthe ;
Nielsen, Sidse Edith ;
Kayser, Lars ;
Roder, Michael Einar ;
From, Gustav .
INTERACTIVE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 8 (02)
[2]   "It's Got to Be on This Page": Age and Cognitive Style in a Study of Online Health Information Seeking [J].
Agree, Emily M. ;
King, Abby C. ;
Castro, Cynthia M. ;
Wiley, Adrienne ;
Borzekowski, Dina L. G. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2015, 17 (03)
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, ENCY RES DESIGN
[4]   Equipping Learners to Evaluate Online Health Care Resources: Longitudinal Study of Learning Design Strategies in a Health Care Massive Open Online Course [J].
Blakemore, Louise M. ;
Meek, Sarah E. M. ;
Marks, Leah K. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2020, 22 (02)
[5]  
Brown Cary A, 2010, J Allied Health, V39, P179
[6]  
Camiling M.K. S., 2019, IAFOR Journal of Education, V7, P69, DOI [DOI 10.22492/IJE.7.2, 10.22492/ije.7.2.04, DOI 10.22492/IJE.7.2.04]
[7]   A Framework for Characterizing eHealth Literacy Demands and Barriers [J].
Chan, Connie V. ;
Kaufman, David R. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2011, 13 (04)
[8]   Internet health information education for older adults: A pilot study [J].
Chang, Sun Ju ;
Yang, Eunjin ;
Lee, Kyoung-Eun ;
Ryu, Hyunju .
GERIATRIC NURSING, 2021, 42 (02) :533-539
[9]   Social media for patients: benefits and drawbacks [J].
De Martino I. ;
D’Apolito R. ;
McLawhorn A.S. ;
Fehring K.A. ;
Sculco P.K. ;
Gasparini G. .
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 2017, 10 (1) :141-145
[10]   Dietary Guidelines for Americans [J].
DeSalvo, Karen B. ;
Olson, Richard ;
Casavale, Kellie O. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 315 (05) :457-458