EHealth Literacy: Extending the Digital Divide to the Realm of Health Information

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The expert group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Forty-two priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas. Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the expert group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions and recommendations for research on how people use plans.

The objective of this paper is to synthesize and update findings from systematic review on health literacy and health outcomes among patients with long-term conditions, and extend the review to the digital domain. Health outcomes include clinical outcomes, processes of care, and health service use. Data sources are the following: (1) studies which appeared in two previous systematic reviews in 2004 and 2011 whose participants were people with long-term conditions or elderly ( n = 54); (2) articles on health literacy and health outcomes identified in an updated 2011–2016 search ( n = 26); (3) articles on eHealth literacy and its association with health outcomes ( n = 8). Strength of evidence was determined by a qualitative assessment of risk of bias, consistency, and directness. There was a lack of consistent evidence on the relationship between health literacy and clinical outcomes despite the consistent evidence on the association with mortality. There was low to insufficient evidence on the association between health literacy and self-rated health/function and emotional states of anxiety and depression, alongside high evidence on lack of association with quality of life. There was insufficient to low evidence on the association between health literacy and behavioral outcomes (medication adherence, other health behaviors) and finally also low to moderate evidence on the association between health literacy and use of health services such as hospitalization and emergency department. In the eHealth literacy domain, there were few studies reporting association with health behaviors and self-rated health with inconsistent results. In conclusion, it is advocated to examine performed heath literacy and eHealth literacy in large longitudinal studies.

Background: Digital health interventions have the potential to improve health at a large scale globally by improving access to healthcare services and health-related information, but they tend to benefit more affluent and privileged groups more than those less privileged.

JMIR Human Factors - a leading peer-reviewed ehealth journal