35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Being an Informed Consumer of Health Information and Assessment of Electronic Health Literacy in a National Sample of Internet Users: Validity and Reliability of the e-HLS Instrument

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Internet, with its capacity to provide information that transcends time and space barriers, continues to transform how people find and apply information to their own lives. With the current explosion in electronic sources of health information, including thousands of websites and hundreds of mobile phone health apps, electronic health literacy is gaining an increasing prominence in health and medical research. An important dimension of electronic health literacy is the ability to appraise the quality of information that will facilitate everyday health care decisions. Health information seekers explore their care options by gathering information from health websites, blogs, Web-based forums, social networking websites, and advertisements, despite the fact that information quality on the Internet varies greatly. Nonetheless, research has lagged behind in establishing multidimensional instruments, in part due to the evolving construct of health literacy itself.

          Objective

          The purpose of this study was to examine psychometric properties of a new electronic health literacy (ehealth literacy) measure in a national sample of Internet users with specific attention to older users. Our paper is motivated by the fact that ehealth literacy is an underinvestigated area of inquiry.

          Methods

          Our sample was drawn from a panel of more than 55,000 participants maintained by Knowledge Networks, the largest national probability-based research panel for Web-based surveys. We examined the factor structure of a 19-item electronic Health Literacy Scale (e-HLS) through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity on sample of adults (n=710) and a subsample of older adults (n=194). The AMOS graphics program 21.0 was used to construct a measurement model, linking latent factors obtained from EFA with 19 indicators to determine whether this factor structure achieved a good fit with our entire sample and the subsample (age ≥ 60 years). Linear regression analyses were performed in separate models to examine: (1) the construct validity of the e-HLS and (2) its association with respondents’ demographic characteristics and health variables.

          Results

          The EFA produced a 3-factor solution: communication (2 items), trust (4 items), and action (13 items). The 3-factor structure of the e-HLS was found to be invariant for the subsample. Fit indices obtained were as follows: full sample: χ 2 (710)=698.547, df=131, P<.001, comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94, normed fit index (NFI)=0.92, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.08; and for the older subsample (age ≥ 60 years): χ 2 (194)=275.744, df=131, P<.001, CFI=0.95, NFI=0.90, RMSEA=0.08.

          Conclusions

          The analyses supported the e-HLS validity and internal reliability for the full sample and subsample. The overwhelming majority of our respondents reported a great deal of confidence in their ability to appraise the quality of information obtained from the Internet, yet less than half reported performing quality checks contained on the e-HLS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.

            The quality of consumer health information on the World Wide Web is an important issue for medicine, but to date no systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the methods and evidence has been performed. To establish a methodological framework on how quality on the Web is evaluated in practice, to determine the heterogeneity of the results and conclusions, and to compare the methodological rigor of these studies, to determine to what extent the conclusions depend on the methodology used, and to suggest future directions for research. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE (1966 through September 2001), Science Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), Social Sciences Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), LISA (1969 through July 2001), CINAHL (1982 through July 2001), PsychINFO (1988 through September 2001), EMBASE (1988 through June 2001), and SIGLE (1980 through June 2001). We also conducted hand searches, general Internet searches, and a personal bibliographic database search. We included published and unpublished empirical studies in any language in which investigators searched the Web systematically for specific health information, evaluated the quality of Web sites or pages, and reported quantitative results. We screened 7830 citations and retrieved 170 potentially eligible full articles. A total of 79 distinct studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 5941 health Web sites and 1329 Web pages, and reporting 408 evaluation results for 86 different quality criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, medical domains, search strategies used, methods and criteria of quality assessment, results (percentage of sites or pages rated as inadequate pertaining to a quality criterion), and quality and rigor of study methods and reporting. Most frequently used quality criteria used include accuracy, completeness, readability, design, disclosures, and references provided. Fifty-five studies (70%) concluded that quality is a problem on the Web, 17 (22%) remained neutral, and 7 studies (9%) came to a positive conclusion. Positive studies scored significantly lower in search (P =.02) and evaluation (P =.04) methods. Due to differences in study methods and rigor, quality criteria, study population, and topic chosen, study results and conclusions on health-related Web sites vary widely. Operational definitions of quality criteria are needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review.

              The Internet has become a favored source to find health information. Worldwide, about 4.5% of all Internet searches are for health-related information. However, research has found that the quality of online health information is mixed, which raises serious concerns about the impact of this information. This paper reviews relevant research to understand how health information on the Internet is retrieved, evaluated, and used. Most users of online health information are looking for information about specific health conditions because they or someone they know was diagnosed with a medical condition. They typically use general search engines to find online health information and enter short phrases, often misspelled. They seldom go beyond the first page of a search. Both their search and evaluation skills are limited although they are concerned about the quality of online health information. They avoid sites with overt commercialism, but often do not pay attention to indicators of credibility. Online health information is used to fill an information void which can enhance coping and self efficacy, affects health-related decisions and behavior of users and their friends and family, and is often discussed with health care providers. There are cross-cultural differences in the types of sites used as well as how online information is used. Based on the research reviewed in this paper, three major recommendations are suggested. Professionals should recommend sites. Professionals should promote more effective search and evaluation techniques. Professionals should be involved in developing and promoting uniform standards for health and mental health sites.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                July 2016
                11 July 2016
                : 18
                : 7
                : e161
                Affiliations
                [1] 1University of North Texas Denton, TXUnited States
                [2] 2Texas Woman's University Denton, TXUnited States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Gül Seçkin gul.seckin@ 123456unt.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-6736
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9512-1013
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3633-6935
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5955-4871
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0013-0027
                Article
                v18i7e161
                10.2196/jmir.5496
                4960406
                27400726
                0a895f0c-3185-47a3-ba93-f373fe96816b
                ©Gül Seçkin, Dale Yeatts, Susan Hughes, Cassie Hudson, Valarie Bell. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 11.07.2016.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 2 January 2016
                : 21 February 2016
                : 1 May 2016
                : 5 May 2016
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                health literacy,health information technology,internet,information,ehealth
                Medicine
                health literacy, health information technology, internet, information, ehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article