MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409875324 · doi:10.2196/60612

The Motivations of Citizens to Attend an eHealth Course in the Public Library: Qualitative Interview Study

2025· article· en· W4409875324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. M. B. Standaar, Adriana Margje Catherine Israel, Rosalie van der Vaart, Brigitta Keij, Frank J. van Lenthe, R.D. Friele, Mariëlle A. Beenackers, L. van Tuyl

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZonMw
KeywordseHealthThematic analysisQualitative researchPublic healthNonprobability samplingHealth careDigital healthPsychologyAutonomyContext (archaeology)Public relationsMedical educationNursingMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPopulationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is worldwide recognition of the potential increase of digital health inequity due to the increased digitalization of health care systems. Digital health skill development may prevent disparities in eHealth access and use. In the Dutch context, the public library has started to facilitate support in digital health skill development by offering public eHealth courses. Understanding the motivations of people to seek support may help to further develop this type of public service. Objective: This is a qualitative study on the motivations of citizens participating in an eHealth course offered by public libraries. The study aimed to explore why citizens were motivated to seek nonformal support for eHealth use. Methods: A total of 20 semistructured interviews with participants who participated in an eHealth course were conducted in 7 public libraries across the Netherlands. The interviews were conducted between April and June 2022. Purposive sampling took place in the public library during the eHealth course. The interviews covered participants' motivations, attitudes, and experiences with eHealth use and their motivations to seek help with eHealth use. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Themes were identified via a comprehensive thematic data analysis. Results: The participants were 51 to 82 years of age (average 73.5, SD 6.6 y) and 14 (70%) participants were female. Three motivational themes were identified: (1) adapting to an increasingly digital society, (2) sense of urgency facilitated by prior experience in health care, and (3) a need for self-reliance and autonomy. Additionally, participants expressed a general desire for social contact and lifelong learning. A lack of adequate informal support by friends and family for digital skills and positive experiences with formal support from public libraries stimulated the participants to seek formal support for eHealth use. Conclusions: We show that the participants had a feeling of urgency that sparked their motivation to seek nonformal support in the public library. Motivations to participate in the eHealth course stemmed from the need to adapt to the digital society, being a patient or a caregiver, or the need or wish to be independent from others. Participants of the study were mainly older female adults who had native language abilities, up-to-date digital devices, and time. It is likely that other populations experience similar feelings of urgency but have other support needs. Future research should explore the needs and attitudes of nonusers and other users of digital health toward seeking support in eHealth access and use.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→