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
. 2021 Jun 3;23(6):e23473.
doi: 10.2196/23473.

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

Mariam El Benny  1 , Tamar Kabakian-Khasholian  1 , Fadi El-Jardali  2 , Marco Bardus  1
Affiliations

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

Mariam El Benny et al. J Med Internet Res. .

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.

Keywords: consumer health information; digital health interventions; eHealth literacy; mHealth; mobile phone; scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. RCT: randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of selected studies (N=131) by year of publication.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of studies (N=131) by eHealth literacy model domain.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20. https://www.jmir.org/2001/2/e20/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soobiah C, Cooper M, Kishimoto V, Bhatia RS, Scott T, Maloney S, Larsen D, Wijeysundera HC, Zelmer J, Gray CS, Desveaux L. Identifying optimal frameworks to implement or evaluate digital health interventions: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 13;10(8):e037643. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037643. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=32792444 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Classification of digital health interventions v1.0 : a shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health. World Health Organization. 2018. [2021-05-17]. https://tinyurl.com/ybd4kedp.
    1. Elbert NJ, van Os-Medendorp H, van Renselaar Wilco, Ekeland AG, van Roijen LH, Raat H, Nijsten TE, Pasmans SG. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Apr 16;16(4):e110. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2790. https://www.jmir.org/2014/4/e110/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jacobs RJ, Lou JQ, Ownby RL, Caballero J. A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy. Health Informatics J. 2016 Jun;22(2):81–98. doi: 10.1177/1460458214534092. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1460458214534092?url_ver=Z39.88... - DOI - PubMed

Publication types