Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 10;18(8):e214.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.5794.

Spanish-Language Consumer Health Information Technology Interventions: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

Spanish-Language Consumer Health Information Technology Interventions: A Systematic Review

Alexis V Chaet et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: As consumer health information technology (IT) becomes more thoroughly integrated into patient care, it is critical that these tools are appropriate for the diverse patient populations whom they are intended to serve. Cultural differences associated with ethnicity are one aspect of diversity that may play a role in user-technology interactions.

Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the current scope of consumer health IT interventions targeted to the US Spanish-speaking Latino population and to characterize these interventions in terms of technological attributes, health domains, cultural tailoring, and evaluation metrics.

Methods: A narrative synthesis was conducted of existing Spanish-language consumer health IT interventions indexed within health and computer science databases. Database searches were limited to English-language articles published between January 1990 and September 2015. Studies were included if they detailed an assessment of a patient-centered electronic technology intervention targeting health within the US Spanish-speaking Latino population. Included studies were required to have a majority Latino population sample. The following were extracted from articles: first author's last name, publication year, population characteristics, journal domain, health domain, technology platform and functionality, available languages of intervention, US region, cultural tailoring, intervention delivery location, study design, and evaluation metrics.

Results: We included 42 studies in the review. Most of the studies were published between 2009 and 2015 and had a majority percentage of female study participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to 68. Interventions most commonly focused on urban population centers and within the western region of the United States. Of articles specifying a technology domain, computer was found to be most common; however, a fairly even distribution across all technologies was noted. Cancer, diabetes, and child, infant, or maternal health were the most common health domains targeted by consumer health IT interventions. More than half of the interventions were culturally tailored. The most frequently used evaluation metric was behavior/attitude change, followed by usability and knowledge retention.

Conclusions: This study characterizes the existing body of research exploring consumer health IT interventions for the US Spanish-speaking Latino population. In doing so, it reveals three primary needs within the field. First, while the increase in studies targeting the Latino population in the last decade is a promising advancement, future research is needed that focuses on Latino subpopulations previously overlooked. Second, preliminary steps have been taken to culturally tailor consumer health IT interventions for the US Spanish-speaking Latino population; however, focus must expand beyond intervention content. Finally, the field should work to promote long-term evaluation of technology efficacy, moving beyond intermediary measures toward measures of health outcomes.

Keywords: Hispanic; Latinos; consumer health informatics; consumer health information; cultural characteristics; cultural competency; ethnicity; health care quality, access, and evaluation; health education; health information technology; health promotion; patient compliance; patient education; patient participation; patient preference; patient satisfaction; preventive health services.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA schematic of study selection.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/15230939 HESR269 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. James J. Health Affairs. 2013. Feb 14, [2016-07-20]. Health Policy Brief: Patient Engagement http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=86 .
    1. Coulter A. Patient engagement--what works? J Ambul Care Manage. 2012;35(2):80–89. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0b013e318249e0fd.00004479-201204000-00003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ishikawa H, Yano E. Patient health literacy and participation in the health-care process. Health Expect. 2008 Jun;11(2):113–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00497.x.HEX497 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maurer M, Dardess P, Carman K, Frazier K, Smeeding L. Guide to Patient and Family Engagement: Environmental Scan Report. AHRQ Publication No. 12-0042-EF. 2012 May;315(12):1–89. http://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/ptfamilyscan.pdf

Publication types