Dataset Information

Application of the eHealth Literacy Model in Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly being adopted globally to address various public health issues. DHIs can be categorized according to four main types of technology: mobile based, web based, telehealth, and electronic health records. In 2006, Norman and Skinner introduced the eHealth literacy model, encompassing six domains of skills and abilities (basic, health, information, scientific, media, and computer) needed to effectively understand, process, and act on health-related information. Little is known about whether these domains are assessed or accounted for in DHIs.

Objective

This study aims to explore how DHIs assess and evaluate the eHealth literacy model, describe which health conditions are addressed, and which technologies are used.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature on DHIs, based on randomized controlled trial design and reporting the assessment of any domain of the eHealth literacy model. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. A duplicate selection and data extraction process was performed; we charted the results according to the country of origin, health condition, technology used, and eHealth literacy domain.

Results

We identified 131 unique DHIs conducted in 26 different countries between 2001 and 2020. Most DHIs were conducted in English-speaking countries (n=81, 61.8%), delivered via the web (n=68, 51.9%), and addressed issues related to noncommunicable diseases (n=57, 43.5%) or mental health (n=26, 19.8%). None of the interventions assessed all six domains of the eHealth literacy model. Most studies focused on the domain of health literacy (n=96, 73.2%), followed by digital (n=19, 14.5%), basic and media (n=4, 3%), and information and scientific literacy (n=1, 0.7%). Of the 131 studies, 7 (5.3%) studies covered both health and digital literacy.

Conclusions

Although many selected DHIs assessed health or digital literacy, no studies comprehensively evaluated all domains of the eHealth literacy model; this evidence might be overlooking important factors that can mediate or moderate the effects of these interventions. Future DHIs should comprehensively assess the eHealth literacy model while developing or evaluating interventions to understand how and why interventions can be effective.

SUBMITTER: El Benny M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212628 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs eHealth and use of information and communication technologies (ICT) within healthcare becomes widespread, it is important to ensure that these forms of healthcare are accessible to the users. One factor that is key to accessing eHealth is digital health literacy.ObjectivesThis scoping review assesses available tools that can be used to evaluate digital health literacy.MethodsA systematic literature search was made in MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsychInfo, Ageline, AMED, and APA PsychArticles to present the tools currently in use to assess digital health literacy. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was carried out using a data charting form created for this review. Extracted data included details of the population of investigation and digital health literacy tool used. A report was produced following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.ResultsIn total, 53 papers with adult participants and 3 with adolescent participants (aged between 12 and 19 years) were included in the scoping review. 5 questionnaires were identified that measured digital health literacy or attitudes towards the internet, of which the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was the most commonly used questionnaire for both adults and children. Two children's questionnaires were often accompanied by a second task to verify the accuracy of the responses to the eHEALS questions.ConclusionseHEALS is the most commonly used method to assess digital health literacy and assess whether an individual is able to engage actively with eHealthcare or virtual resources. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that its administration does not exclude digitally disadvantaged groups from completing it. Future research would benefit from assessing whether digital health literacy tools are appropriate for use in clinical settings, working to ensure that any scales developed in this area are practical and can be used to support the allocation of resources to ensure that people are able to access healthcare equitably.

Project description:BackgroundThe emergence of genetic and genomic sequencing approaches for pediatric patients has raised questions about the genomic health literacy levels, attitudes toward receiving genomic information, and use of this information to inform treatment decisions by pediatric patients and their parents. However, the methods to educate pediatric patients and their parents about genomic concepts through digital health interventions have not been well-established.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this scoping review is to investigate the current levels of genomic health literacy and the attitudes toward receiving genomic information among pediatric patients and their parents. The secondary aim is to investigate patient education interventions that aim to measure and increase genomic health literacy among pediatric patients and their parents. The findings from this review will be used to inform future digital health interventions for patient education.MethodsA scoping review using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines and protocols was completed using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus. Our search strategy included genomic information inclusive of all genetic and genomic terms, pediatrics, and patient education. Inclusion criteria included the following: the study included genetic, genomic, or a combination of genetic and genomic information; the study population was pediatric (children and adolescents <18 years) and parents of patients with pediatric illnesses or only parents of patients with pediatric illnesses; the study included an assessment of the knowledge, attitudes, and intervention regarding genomic information; the study was conducted in the last 12 years between 2008 and 2020; and the study was in the English language. Descriptive data regarding study design, methodology, disease population, and key findings were extracted. All the findings were collated, categorized, and reported thematically.ResultsOf the 4618 studies, 14 studies (n=6, 43% qualitative, n=6, 43% mixed methods, and n=2, 14% quantitative) were included. Key findings were based on the following 6 themes: knowledge of genomic concepts, use of the internet and social media for genomic information, use of genomic information for decision-making, hopes and attitudes toward receiving genomic information, experiences with genetic counseling, and interventions to improve genomic knowledge.ConclusionsThis review identified that older age is related to the capacity of understanding genomic concepts, increased genomic health literacy levels, and the perceived ability to participate in decision-making related to genomic information. In addition, internet-searching plays a major role in obtaining genomic information and filling gaps in communication with health care providers. However, little is known about the capacity of pediatric patients and their parents to understand genomic information and make informed decisions based on the genomic information obtained. More research is required to inform digital health interventions and to leverage the leading best practices to educate these genomic concepts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

Project description:BackgroundPeople from lower and middle socioeconomic classes and vulnerable populations are among the worst affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, thus exacerbating disparities and the digital divide.ObjectiveTo draw a portrait of e-services as a digital approach to support digital health literacy in vulnerable populations amid the COVID-19 infodemic, and identify the barriers and facilitators for their implementation.MethodsA scoping review was performed to gather published literature with a broad range of study designs and grey literature without exclusions based on country of publication. A search was created in Medline (Ovid) in March 2021 and translated to Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost). The combined literature search generated 819 manuscripts. To be included, manuscripts had to be written in English, and present information on digital intervention(s) (e.g. social media) used to enable or increase digital health literacy among vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. older adults, Indigenous people living on reserve).ResultsFive articles were included in the study. Various digital health literacy-enabling e-services have been implemented in different vulnerable populations. Identified e-services aimed to increase disease knowledge, digital health literacy and social media usage, help in coping with changes in routines and practices, decrease fear and anxiety, increase digital knowledge and skills, decrease health literacy barriers and increase technology acceptance in specific groups. Many facilitators of digital health literacy-enabling e-services implementation were identified in expectant mothers and their families, older adults and people with low-income. Barriers such as low literacy limited to no knowledge about the viruses, medium of contamination, treatment options played an important role in distracting and believing in misinformation and disinformation. Poor health literacy was the only barrier found, which may hinder the understanding of individual health needs, illness processes and treatments for people with HIV/AIDS.ConclusionsThe literature on the topic is scarce, sparse and immature. We did not find any literature on digital health literacy in Indigenous people, though we targeted this vulnerable population. Although only a few papers were included, two types of health conditions were covered by the literature on digital health literacy-enabling e-services, namely chronic conditions and conditions that are new to the patients. Digital health literacy can help improve prevention and adherence to a healthy lifestyle, improve capacity building and enable users to take the best advantage of the options available, thus strengthening the patient's involvement in health decisions and empowerment, and finally improving health outcomes. Therefore, there is an urgent need to pursue research on digital health literacy and develop digital platforms to help solve current and future COVID-19-related health needs.

Project description:BackgroundWhile many digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have been found to be efficacious, patient engagement with DMHIs has increasingly emerged as a concern for implementation in real-world clinical settings. To address engagement, we must first understand what standard engagement levels are in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how these compare with other treatments.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to examine the state of reporting on intervention engagement in RCTs of mobile app-based interventions intended to treat symptoms of depression. We sought to identify what engagement metrics are and are not routinely reported as well as what the metrics that are reported reflect about standard engagement levels.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of 7 databases to identify studies meeting our eligibility criteria, namely, RCTs that evaluated use of a mobile app-based intervention in adults, for which depressive symptoms were a primary outcome of interest. We then extracted 2 kinds of information from each article: intervention details and indices of DMHI engagement. A 5-element framework of minimum necessary DMHI engagement reporting was derived by our team and guided our data extraction. This framework included (1) recommended app use as communicated to participants at enrollment and, when reported, app adherence criteria; (2) rate of intervention uptake among those assigned to the intervention; (3) level of app use metrics reported, specifically number of uses and time spent using the app; (4) duration of app use metrics (ie, weekly use patterns); and (5) number of intervention completers.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 2083 unique records. Of these, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion. Only 64% (14/22) of studies included in this review specified rate of intervention uptake. Level of use metrics was only reported in 59% (13/22) of the studies reviewed. Approximately one-quarter of the studies (5/22, 23%) reported duration of use metrics. Only half (11/22, 50%) of the studies reported the number of participants who completed the app-based components of the intervention as intended or other metrics related to completion. Findings in those studies reporting metrics related to intervention completion indicated that between 14.4% and 93.0% of participants randomized to a DMHI condition completed the intervention as intended or according to a specified adherence criteria.ConclusionsFindings suggest that engagement was underreported and widely varied. It was not uncommon to see completion rates at or below 50% (11/22) of those participants randomized to a treatment condition or to simply see completion rates not reported at all. This variability in reporting suggests a failure to establish sufficient reporting standards and limits the conclusions that can be drawn about level of engagement with DMHIs. Based on these findings, the 5-element framework applied in this review may be useful as a minimum necessary standard for DMHI engagement reporting.

Project description:BackgroundDisease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.ObjectiveThis review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.MethodsA scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.ResultsThe search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.ConclusionsPreventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.