Evidence mapPaperPMID 32788144Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Applying the Electronic Health Literacy Lens: Systematic Review of Electronic Health Interventions Targeted at Socially Disadvantaged Groups.

Christina Cheng, Alison Beauchamp, Gerald R Elsworth, Richard H Osborne

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. An exploratory study to understand how rurality status and demographic characteristics are associated with enrollment, engagement, and retention in a digital health intervention targeting the Appalachian region.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christina Cheng *Centre for Global Health and Equity, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8950-7689
Alison BeauchampDepartment of Rural Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6555-6200
Gerald R ElsworthCentre for Global Health and Equity, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6306-7593
Richard H OsborneCentre for Global Health and Equity, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9081-2699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health (eHealth) has the potential to improve health outcomes. However, eHealth systems need to match the eHealth literacy needs of users to be equitably adopted. Socially disadvantaged groups have lower access and skills to use technologies and are at risk of being digitally marginalized, leading to the potential widening of health disparities.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to explore the role of eHealth literacy and user involvement in developing eHealth interventions targeted at socially disadvantaged groups.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across 10 databases for eHealth interventions targeted at older adults, ethnic minority groups, low-income groups, low-literacy groups, and rural communities. The eHealth Literacy Framework was used to examine the eHealth literacy components of reviewed interventions. The results were analyzed using narrative synthesis.

resultsA total of 51 studies reporting on the results of 48 interventions were evaluated. Most studies were targeted at older adults and ethnic minorities, with only 2 studies focusing on low-literacy groups. eHealth literacy was not considered in the development of any of the studies, and no eHealth literacy assessment was conducted. User involvement in designing interventions was limited, and eHealth intervention developmental frameworks were rarely used. Strategies to assist users in engaging with technical systems were seldom included in the interventions, and accessibility features were limited. The results of the included studies also provided inconclusive evidence on the effectiveness of eHealth interventions.

conclusionsThe findings highlight that eHealth literacy is generally overlooked in developing eHealth interventions targeted at socially disadvantaged groups, whereas evidence about the effectiveness of such interventions is limited. To ensure equal access and inclusiveness in the age of eHealth, eHealth literacy of disadvantaged groups needs to be addressed to help avoid a digital divide. This will assist the realization of recent technological advancements and, importantly, improve health equity.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyHumansInternetInternet-Based InterventionResearch DesignTelemedicineVulnerable Populationsdigital divideeHealthhealth carehealth equityhealth literacyinternettelecommunications

Identifiers

PMID32788144
PMCPMC7453328

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.