Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background: Advancements in digital technologies seek to promote health and access to services. However, people lacking abilities and confidence to use technology are likely to be left behind, leading to health disparities. In providing digital health services, health care providers need to be aware of users’ diverse electronic health (eHealth) literacy to address their particular needs and ensure equitable uptake and use of digital services. To understand such needs, an instrument that captures users’ knowledge, skills, trust, motivation, and experiences in relation to technology is required. The eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) is a multidimensional tool with 7 scales covering diverse dimensions of eHealth literacy. The tool was simultaneously developed in English and Danish using a grounded and validity-driven approach and has been shown to have strong psychometric properties. Objective: This study aims to translate and culturally adapt the eHLQ for application among Mandarin-speaking people with chronic diseases in Taiwan and then undertake a rigorous set of validity-testing procedures. Methods: The cross-cultural adaptation of the eHLQ included translation and evaluation of the translations. The measurement properties were assessed using classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) approaches. Content validity, known-group validity, and internal consistency were explored, as well as item characteristic curves (ICCs), item discrimination, and item location/difficulty. Results: The adapted version was reviewed, and a recommended forward translation was confirmed through consensus. The tool exhibited good content validity. A total of 420 people with 1 or more chronic diseases participated in a validity-testing survey. The eHLQ showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.75-.95). For known-group validity, all 7 eHLQ scales showed strong associations with education. Unidimensionality and local independence assumptions were met except for scale 2. IRT analysis showed that all items demonstrated good discrimination (range 0.27-12.15) and a good range of difficulty (range 0.59-1.67) except for 2 items in scale 7. Conclusions: Using a rigorous process, the eHLQ was translated from English into a culturally appropriate tool for use in the Mandarin language. Validity testing provided evidence of satisfactory-to-strong psychometric properties of the eHLQ. The 7 scales are likely to be useful research tools for evaluating digital health interventions and for informing the development of health technology products and interventions that equitably suit diverse users’ needs.

Aim: This study aims to explore the change process among chronic kidney disease patients in shared decision‐making.Design: Qualitative research is the design applied.Method: Original transcripts from an earlier study involving a purposive sample of 31 patients with chronic kidney disease provided a source of information. The data collection was conducted from August 2017–January 2018. Data analysis applied the thematic analysis method.Results: Three themes were identified: from avoidance to being forced to accept, decision‐making process of action and facilitating factors. After making the psychological adjustments necessary for undergoing dialysis treatment, participants experience the process of decision‐making action. The improvement of knowledge and ability increases the patient's self‐determination consciousness and strengthens confidence in decision‐making. The nurse and the patient's family are both important facilitating factors, and they assist through the entire SDM process.

Wei-Min Chu, M.D., MSc, Ph.D., Hung-Bin Tsai, M.D., MSc, Ph.D., Yu-Chi Chen, R.N., MSc, Ph.D., Kuan-Yu Hung, M.D., Ph.D., Shao-Yi Cheng, M.D., MSc, Dr.PH. and Cheng-Pei Lin, R.N., MSc, Ph.D.. J Hosp Palliat Care 2024;27:1-10. https://doi.org/10.14475/jhpc.2024.27.1.1

Background: Intensive care medical technology increases the survival rate of critically ill patients. However, life-sustaining treatments also increase the probability of non-beneficial medical treatments given to patients at the end of life. Objective: This study aimed to analyse whether patients with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order were more likely to be subject to the withholding of cardiac resuscitation and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the ICU. Methods: This retrospective study collected data regarding the demographics, illness conditions, and life-sustaining treatments of ICU patients who were last admitted to the ICU between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017, as determined by the hospital’s electronic medical dataset. Results: We identified and collected data on 386 patients over the two years; 319 (82.6%) signed a DNR before the end. The study found that DNR patients were less likely to receive cardiac resuscitation before death than non-DNR patients. The cardiac resuscitation treatments included chest compressions, electric shock, and cardiotonic drug injections (p < 0.001). However, the life-sustaining treatments were withdrawn for only a few patients before death. The study highlights that an early-documented DNR order is essential. However, it needs to be considered that promoting discussions of time-limited trials might be the solution to helping ICU terminal patients withdraw from non-beneficial life-sustaining treatments.