Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Health literacy research seems to lack a consensus on what aspects to include into ‘literacy’ in the context of health, and on how to operationalize these concepts for measurement purposes. In addition to health literacy, several other concepts, such as eHealth literacy and mental health literacy, have been developed across disciplines. This study examines how these different concepts are used when studying health related competencies in online contexts. Objective: This study systematically reviews health literacy concepts and definitions, and their operationalization in studies focused on online environments. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2016 in six electronic databases with a limitation to articles in English published between January 2011 and April 2016. Altogether, 1289 unique records were identified and screened according to the predefined inclusion criteria: (a) original, peer-reviewed research articles written in English, (b) the topic of the article concerned literacy in the context of health, (c) informants of the study were lay people, not health professionals or students of the field, and (d) the focus of the study was placed on an online environment. In total, 180 full-texts were screened, of which 68 were included in the review. The studies were analyzed with an emphasis on the used health literacy concepts and measures. Results: Based on the included studies, several concepts are in use when studying health related literacy in online environments, eHealth literacy and health literacy being the most common ones. The reviewed studies represent a variety of disciplines, but mostly medical sciences. Typically, quantitative research methods are used. Based on the definitions for health literacy, three thematic categories were identified: general and skills-based, multidimensional, and domain-specific health literacy. Most studies adopted a domain-specific concept, followed by the ones that used a general and skill-based concept. Multidimensional concepts occurred least frequently. The general health literacy concepts were usually operationalized with reading comprehension measures, the domain-specific concepts with self-efficacy measures, and multidimensional concepts with several types of measures. However, inconsistencies in operationalization were identified. Conclusions: The results show that in studies conducted in online environments, several different health literacy concepts are in use, and there is no clear consensus on the definitions for these concepts. Future studies should place emphasis on the conceptual development of health literacy in online contexts to gain better results on operationalization for measurement. Researchers are encouraged to provide clear operational definitions for the concepts they use to ensure transparency in reporting.