eHealth Literacy and Its Association With Demographic Factors, Disease-Specific Factors, and Well-Being Among Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of digital health technology in diabetes self-care is increasing, making eHealth literacy an important factor to consider among people with type 1 diabetes. There are very few studies investigating eHealth literacy among adults with type 1 diabetes, highlighting the need to explore this area further. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore associations between eHealth literacy and demographic factors, disease-specific factors, and well-being among adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: The study used data from a larger cross-sectional survey conducted among adults with type 1 diabetes in Sweden (N=301). Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling method primarily through advertisements on social media. Data were collected between September and November 2022 primarily through a web-based survey, although participants could opt to answer a paper-based survey. Screening questions at the beginning of the survey determined eligibility to participate. In this study, eHealth literacy was assessed using the Swedish version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (Sw-eHEALS). The predictor variables, well-being was assessed using the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index and psychosocial self-efficacy using the Swedish version of the Diabetes Empowerment Scale. The survey also included research group-developed questions on demographic and disease-specific variables as well as digital health technology use. Data were analyzed using multiple linear regression presented as nested models. A sample size of 270 participants was required in order to detect an association between the dependent and predictor variables using a regression model based on an F test. The final sample size included in the nested regression model was 285. Results: The mean Sw-eHEALS score was 33.42 (SD 5.32; range 8-40). The model involving both demographic and disease-specific variables explained 31.5% of the total variation in eHealth literacy and was deemed the best-fitting model. Younger age (P=.01; B=-0.07, SE=0.03;95% CI -0.12 to -0.02), lower self-reported glycated hemoglobin levels (P=.04; B=-0.06, SE=0.03; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.00), and higher psychosocial self-efficacy (P<.001; B=3.72, SE=0.53; 95% CI 2.68-4.75) were found associated with higher Sw-eHEALS scores when adjusted for demographic and disease-specific variables in this model. Well-being was not associated with eHealth literacy in this study. Conclusions: The demographic and disease-specific factors explained the variation in eHealth literacy in this sample. Further studies in this area using newer eHealth literacy tools are important to validate our findings. The study highlights the importance of development and testing of interventions to improve eHealth literacy in this population for better glucose control. These eHealth literacy interventions should be tailored to meet the needs of people in varying age groups and with differing levels of psychosocial self-efficacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".