The Relation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: With widespread use of the internet and mobile devices, many people have gained improved access to health-related information online for health promotion and disease management. As the health information acquired online can affect health-related behaviors, health care providers need to take into account how each individual's online health literacy (eHealth literacy) can affect health-related behaviors. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an individual's level of eHealth literacy affects actual health-related behaviors, the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was identified in an integrated manner through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and Research Information Sharing Service databases were systematically searched for studies published up to March 19, 2021, which suggested the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. Studies were eligible if they were conducted with the general population, presented eHealth literacy according to validated tools, used no specific control condition, and measured health-related behaviors as the outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on the studies that could be quantitatively synthesized using a random effect model. A pooled correlation coefficient was generated by integrating the correlation coefficients, and the risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Among 1922 eHealth literacy-related papers, 29 studies suggesting an association between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors were included. All retrieved studies were cross-sectional studies, and most of them used the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) as a measurement tool for eHealth literacy. Of the 29 studies, 22 presented positive associations between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. The meta-analysis was performed on 14 studies that presented the correlation coefficient for the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. When the meta-analysis was conducted by age, morbidity status, and type of health-related behavior, the pooled correlation coefficients were 0.37 (95% CI 0.29-0.44) for older adults (aged ≥65 years), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.39) for individuals with diseases, and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27-0.41) for health-promoting behavior. The overall estimate of the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was 0.31 (95% CI 0.25-0.34), which indicated a moderate correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results of a positive correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors indicate that eHealth literacy can be a mediator in the process by which health-related information leads to changes in health-related behaviors. Larger-scale studies with stronger validity are needed to evaluate the detailed relationship between the proficiency level of eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors for health promotion in the future.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,022 | 0,036 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».