MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366351386 · doi:10.2196/42868

Factors Associated With Limited Digital Health Literacy Among Chinese Male Populations: Cross-sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4366351386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhaoquan Xing, Meng Ji, Zhaogang Dong, Xiaofei Xu, Yi Shan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthHealth literacyLiteracyMedicinePsychological interventionLikert scalePsychologyGerontologyMedical educationFamily medicineHealth careNursingDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: eHealth resources and interventions promise to promote favorable behavior change, self-efficacy, and knowledge acquisition, thereby improving health literacy. However, individuals with limited eHealth literacy may find it difficult to identify, understand, and benefit from eHealth use. It is necessary to identify the self-assessed eHealth literacy of those who use eHealth resources to classify their eHealth literacy levels and to determine the demographic characteristics associated with higher and lower eHealth literacy skills. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify notable factors closely associated with limited eHealth literacy among Chinese male populations to provide some implications for clinical practice, health education, medical research, and public health policy making. METHODS: We hypothesized that participants' eHealth literacy status was associated with various demographic characteristics. Therefore, we elicited the following information in the questionnaire: age and education, self-assessed disease knowledge, 3 well-developed health literacy assessment tools (ie, the All Aspects of Health Literacy Scale, eHealth Literacy Scale, and General Health Numeracy Test), and the 6 Internal items on health beliefs and self-confidence in the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales. Using randomized sampling, we recruited survey participants from Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, China. After validating the data collected through a web-based questionnaire survey via wenjuanxing, we coded all valid data according to predefined coding schemes of Likert scales with different point (score) ranges. We then calculated the total scores of the subsections of the scales or the entire scale. Finally, we used logistic regression modeling to associate the scores of the eHealth Literacy Scale with the scores of the All Aspects of Health Literacy Scale, the General Health Numeracy Test-6, and age and education to ascertain factors considerably associated with limited eHealth literacy among Chinese male populations. RESULTS: All data from the 543 returned questionnaires were valid according to the validation criteria. By interpreting these descriptive statistics, we found that 4 factors were significantly correlated with participants' limited eHealth literacy: older age, lower education attainment, lower levels of all aspects of health literacy (functional, communicative, and critical), and weaker beliefs and self-confidence in internal drivers and strengths to stay healthy. CONCLUSIONS: By applying logistic regression modeling, we ascertained 4 factors that were significantly correlated with limited eHealth literacy among Chinese male populations. These relevant factors identified can inform stakeholders engaging in clinical practice, health education, medical research, and health policy making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207