Correlates and Detection of Digital Health Literacy in Patients With Colorectal Carcinoma or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cutting-edge oncology care often depends on patients' ability to use rapidly evolving health technology. Digital health literacy (DHL; the capacity to understand health-related information with electronic media) is an emerging, yet underexplored social determinant of health in patients with cancer. Objective: We aimed to characterize sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with DHL in patients with cancer and explore whether a single-item screener could be derived from a widely-used DHL questionnaire to detect low DHL. Methods: Patients (N=105) who received systemic treatment in the past year for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) were recruited through collaborating clinics. Participants self-reported DHL using the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). They also reported general health literacy and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Correlations and group comparisons (independent sample t tests and χ2 tests, as appropriate) were used to evaluate links between DHL and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine whether a single eHEALS item could effectively screen for low DHL (eHEALS score ≤20). Results: Patients with a lower education level (Spearman ρ=0.29; P=.004) and lower general health literacy (r=0.25; P=.009) had lower DHL. Patients with NHL reported lower DHL than those with CRC (t103=2.72; P=.008). Additionally, the subset of patients who reported participation in a clinical trial (n=10) exhibited lower DHL than nonparticipants (t100=3.08; P=.003). Other sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly associated with DHL (all P>.21). The ROC curve analysis showed that eHEALS item 4 ("I know where to find helpful health resources on the Internet") was a strong predictor of high versus low DHL (area under the curve=0.975, 95% CI 0.949-1.00; P<.001). Conclusions: In this convenience sample, DHL varied based on cancer type, education level, general health literacy, and clinical trial participation. Furthermore, we found that a single item from the eHEALS has strong potential for identifying those with low DHL. These findings may inform which patients have higher need for or may benefit from DHL interventions and suggest avenues for detecting low DHL in oncology clinics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".