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
. 2025 May 2:13:1587163.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1587163. eCollection 2025.

Assessment of eHealth literacy among cardiovascular disease patients and analysis of influencing factors

Affiliations

Assessment of eHealth literacy among cardiovascular disease patients and analysis of influencing factors

Wei Wang et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the eHealth literacy of patients with cardiovascular diseases and uncover the associated influencing factors. The findings are intended to lay a solid foundation for formulating targeted strategies to enhance the health literacy of this patient population.

Methods: Between October 2023 and June 2024, a purposive sampling approach was employed to recruit patients with cardiovascular diseases visiting the cardiology department of a tertiary hospital in Shandong Province. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was utilized to assess the eHealth literacy levels of the participants. Based on the assessment results, the subjects were classified into qualified and unqualified groups. Subsequently, logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the influencing factors underlying eHealth literacy.

Results: The eHealth literacy score among cardiovascular disease patients was 20.46 ± 9.54, with a passing rate of 38.6%. The overall mean score across all items was 2.5 ± 1.19. Specifically, for the sub-domains of internet health information service capabilities and application abilities, evaluation capabilities of internet health information and services, and decision - making capabilities of internet health information and services, the mean scores were 2.49 ± 1.18, 2.67 ± 1.32, and 2.66 ± 1.35, respectively. Findings from binary logistic regression analysis suggest that education level, sleep quality, residing in close proximity to a medical institution (distance < 5 km), prior utilization of medical information websites or search engines, as well as the interaction between proactive health awareness and utilization of medical information websites or search engines, were all influencing factors for the qualification of e - health literacy (p < 0.05). These results underscore the complex interplay of multiple factors in determining patients' eHealth literacy levels, which has important implications for the design and implementation of effective health information dissemination and patient education strategies in the digital age.

Conclusion: Our findings reveal that the eHealth literacy among cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients remains at a relatively low level. This situation underscores the urgent need for interventions aimed at enhancing patients' proactive health awareness and delivering targeted eHealth training programs. Specifically, such initiatives should be designed to enable patients to accurately access, comprehensively understand, critically evaluate, and effectively apply health information in the digital realm. By doing so, we can empower CVD patients to better manage their health in the context of the digital age, ultimately leading to an improvement in their eHealth literacy levels. These efforts are not only crucial for individual patient care but also have broader implications for optimizing health outcomes at a population level.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease; eHealth literacy; health education; health literacy; influencing factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

References

    1. Zhang AY, Kong LZ. The epidemic situation and prevention countermeasures of chronic diseases. Chin J Pre Contr Chron Dis. (2005) 1:1–3. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3141.2020.54.193 - DOI
    1. Machado DB, Pescarini JM, Ramos D, Teixeira R, Lozano R, Pereira VOM, et al. . Monitoring the progress of health-related sustainable development goals (SDGs) in Brazilian states using the global burden of disease indicators. Popul Health Metrics. (2020) 18:7. doi: 10.1186/s12963-020-00207-2, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang LM, Chen ZH, Zhang M, Zhao ZP, Huang ZJ, Zhang X, et al. . Prevalence and disease burden of chronic diseases among the elderly in China. Chin J Epidemiol. (2019) 40:277–83. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2019.03.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wu SY, Cai YY, Xu XY, Zheng KC, Li HY. Challenges and opportunities of "medical-prevention" integration for common chronic diseases in China. Chin J Public Health. (2019) 35:1289–92. doi: 10.11847/zgggws1126005 - DOI
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res. (2006) 8:e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources