Quality and Bias Assessment.
<div><p>Online/digital health literacy is important for individuals to evaluate the influence of such input in their care and consent for treatment. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the digital health literacy level among adults in studies that used the eHealth Literac...
Збережено в:
| Автор: | |
|---|---|
| Інші автори: | |
| Опубліковано: |
2025
|
| Предмети: | |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| _version_ | 1849927641881116672 |
|---|---|
| author | R. Constance Wiener (13104494) |
| author2 | Bayan J. Abuhalimeh (22676619) |
| author2_role | author |
| author_facet | R. Constance Wiener (13104494) Bayan J. Abuhalimeh (22676619) |
| author_role | author |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | R. Constance Wiener (13104494) Bayan J. Abuhalimeh (22676619) |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv | 2025-11-24T18:31:21Z |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001075.t001 |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv | https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Quality_and_Bias_Assessment_/30697395 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv | Medicine Sociology Cancer Science Policy Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified xlink "> online qualitative interview study public gains skill preferred reporting items ehealth literacy scale digital health literacy lowest mean score highest mean score study provide evidence highest eheals score 2020 &# 8211 weighted mean evidence following wide range systematic reviews systematic review researchers evaluated prisma ). peer reviewed large range healthcare decisions excluded resulting eheals scores analysis statement 6 ). |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | Dataset info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion dataset |
| description | <div><p>Online/digital health literacy is important for individuals to evaluate the influence of such input in their care and consent for treatment. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the digital health literacy level among adults in studies that used the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) as a measure of digital health literacy. The authors searched Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for evidence following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement, 2020 (PRISMA). Included were articles in which the researchers evaluated the level of digital health literacy using eHEALS, were peer reviewed, written in English or in which English translation was provided, and were published between 2020–2025. There were 200 articles initially identified in the search, 180 were excluded resulting in a sample of 20 publications. EHEALS scores, with possibilities from 8-40, had a weighted mean of 24.3 (95%CI: 17.1-31.6). The lowest mean score was 12.57; and the highest mean score was 35.1. The highest eHEALS score was from a qualitative interview study. Nine other studies reported overall means ≥ 30. There were three with eHEALS scores below 20. Globally, there is a wide range of reported digital health literacy levels. It is critical that the public gains skill and confidence in digital health literacy for healthcare decisions. The results of this study provide evidence of a large range of digital health literacy.</p></div> |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| id | Manara_372fd532552a077595bcc0b2e4826fcc |
| identifier_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001075.t001 |
| network_acronym_str | Manara |
| network_name_str | ManaraRepo |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:figshare.com:article/30697395 |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv | |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv | |
| repository_id_str | |
| rights_invalid_str_mv | CC BY 4.0 |
| spelling | Quality and Bias Assessment.R. Constance Wiener (13104494)Bayan J. Abuhalimeh (22676619)MedicineSociologyCancerScience PolicyBiological Sciences not elsewhere classifiedxlink "> onlinequalitative interview studypublic gains skillpreferred reporting itemsehealth literacy scaledigital health literacylowest mean scorehighest mean scorestudy provide evidencehighest eheals score2020 &# 8211weighted meanevidence followingwide rangesystematic reviewssystematic reviewresearchers evaluatedprisma ).peer reviewedlarge rangehealthcare decisionsexcluded resultingeheals scoresanalysis statement6 ).<div><p>Online/digital health literacy is important for individuals to evaluate the influence of such input in their care and consent for treatment. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the digital health literacy level among adults in studies that used the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) as a measure of digital health literacy. The authors searched Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for evidence following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement, 2020 (PRISMA). Included were articles in which the researchers evaluated the level of digital health literacy using eHEALS, were peer reviewed, written in English or in which English translation was provided, and were published between 2020–2025. There were 200 articles initially identified in the search, 180 were excluded resulting in a sample of 20 publications. EHEALS scores, with possibilities from 8-40, had a weighted mean of 24.3 (95%CI: 17.1-31.6). The lowest mean score was 12.57; and the highest mean score was 35.1. The highest eHEALS score was from a qualitative interview study. Nine other studies reported overall means ≥ 30. There were three with eHEALS scores below 20. Globally, there is a wide range of reported digital health literacy levels. It is critical that the public gains skill and confidence in digital health literacy for healthcare decisions. The results of this study provide evidence of a large range of digital health literacy.</p></div>2025-11-24T18:31:21ZDatasetinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiondataset10.1371/journal.pdig.0001075.t001https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Quality_and_Bias_Assessment_/30697395CC BY 4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:figshare.com:article/306973952025-11-24T18:31:21Z |
| spellingShingle | Quality and Bias Assessment. R. Constance Wiener (13104494) Medicine Sociology Cancer Science Policy Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified xlink "> online qualitative interview study public gains skill preferred reporting items ehealth literacy scale digital health literacy lowest mean score highest mean score study provide evidence highest eheals score 2020 &# 8211 weighted mean evidence following wide range systematic reviews systematic review researchers evaluated prisma ). peer reviewed large range healthcare decisions excluded resulting eheals scores analysis statement 6 ). |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| title_full | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| title_fullStr | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| title_short | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| title_sort | Quality and Bias Assessment. |
| topic | Medicine Sociology Cancer Science Policy Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified xlink "> online qualitative interview study public gains skill preferred reporting items ehealth literacy scale digital health literacy lowest mean score highest mean score study provide evidence highest eheals score 2020 &# 8211 weighted mean evidence following wide range systematic reviews systematic review researchers evaluated prisma ). peer reviewed large range healthcare decisions excluded resulting eheals scores analysis statement 6 ). |