31
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

      Effectiveness of Digital Health Literacy Interventions in Older Adults: Single-Arm Meta-Analysis

      review-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

          In a world of rapid digital technology development, the lack of digital health literacy (DHL) among older people cannot be ignored. DHL is becoming an essential competency that can facilitate the health status and health management of older adults. DHL interventions that are feasible and appropriate can be implemented on a large scale through the health care system for older people.

          Objective

          The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of DHL interventions for older adults.

          Methods

          English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 20, 2022. Two reviewers independently completed the data extraction and quality assessment. Review Manager (version 5.4; Cochrane Informatics & Technology Services) software was used for all meta-analyses.

          Results

          A total of 7 studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 5 quasi-experimental studies, involving 710 older adults were considered eligible. The main outcome was scores on the eHealth Literacy Scale, and secondary outcomes were knowledge, self-efficacy, and skills. Quasi-experimental studies compared baseline and postintervention outcomes, while randomized controlled trials compared pre- and postintervention outcomes in the intervention group. Of the 7 studies, 3 used face-to-face instruction, while 4 adopted web-based interventions. Among them, 4 of the interventions were conducted using theoretical guidance, while 3 were not. Intervention duration varied from 2 to 8 weeks. In addition, the studies included were all conducted in developed countries, mainly in the United States. Pooled analysis presented that DHL interventions had positive effects on eHealth literacy efficacy (standardized mean difference 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.84; P=.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that DHL interventions that chose face-to-face teaching (standardized mean difference 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.84; P=.001), were guided by a conceptual framework (standardized mean difference 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.84; P=.001), and were sustained over 4 weeks (standardized mean difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.84; P=.001) had a more significant effect. Moreover, the outcomes showed considerable gains in knowledge (standardized mean difference 0.93, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; P<.001) and self-efficacy (standardized mean difference 0.96, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.77; P=.02). No statistically significant effect was found for skills (standardized mean difference 0.77, 95% CI –0.30 to 1.85; P=.16). The small number of studies, variable study quality, and heterogeneity are some limitations of this review.

          Conclusions

          DHL interventions have positive effects on the health status and health management of older adults. Practical and effective DHL interventions are crucial for the use of modern digital information technology in managing the health of older people.

          Trial Registration

          PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42023410204; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=410204

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology

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

              Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

              A Bandura (1977)
                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
                2023
                28 June 2023
                : 25
                : e48166
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Nursing Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences Taian, Shandong Province China
                [2 ] School of Nursing Qingdao University Qingdao, Shandong Province China
                [3 ] Jinan Blood Center Jinan, Shandong Province China
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Cuiping Liu lcping0926@ 123456126.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7843-6079
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3065-8367
                https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4937-4402
                https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0229-2106
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8933-6798
                Article
                v25i1e48166
                10.2196/48166
                10365623
                37379077
                662cc052-d7ed-41f7-8d47-b441752ce8f6
                ©Qian Dong, Ting Liu, Ran Liu, Hongxia Yang, Cuiping Liu. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 28.06.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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 https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 13 April 2023
                : 10 May 2023
                : 23 May 2023
                : 6 June 2023
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                digital health literacy interventions,older adults,ehealth literacy efficacy,knowledge,self-efficacy,skills

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content220

                Cited by17

                Most referenced authors1,037