ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Electronic Health Literacy Scale-Web3.0 for Older Adults with Noncommunicable Diseases: Validation Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The level of electronic health literacy among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Pooled it
- Development of a Digital Health Literacy Assessment Framework for Older Adults: Delphi-Based Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Exploring the status and influencing factors of nurses' digital health literacy: a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Associations of electronic health literacy with related factors in individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Associations between eHealth literacy and 24-hour movement behaviors in older adults: the mediating and moderating roles of self-efficacy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Electronic Health Literacy, Psychological Distress, and Quality of Life in Urological Cancer Patients: A Longitudinal Study During Transition from Inpatient to Outpatient Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Observational
- eHealth Literacy Assessment Instruments: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Understanding parental support for children's 24-hour movement behaviors based on an adapted HAPA framework: A three-wave prospective study.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the current digital era, eHealth literacy plays an indispensable role in health care and self-management among older adults with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Measuring eHealth literacy appropriately and accurately ensures the successful implementation and evaluation of pertinent research and interventions. However, existing eHealth literacy measures focus mainly on individuals' abilities of accessing and comprehending eHealth information (Web1.0), whereas the capabilities for web-based interaction (Web2.0) and using eHealth information (Web3.0) have not been adequately evaluated.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of the eHealth Literacy Scale-Web3.0 (eHLS-Web3.0) among older adults with NCDs.
methodsA total of 642 Chinese older adults with NCDs (mean age 65.78, SD 3.91 years; 55.8% female) were recruited in the baseline assessment, of whom 134 (mean age 65.63, SD 3.99 years; 58.2% female) completed the 1-month follow-up assessment. Baseline measures included the Chinese version of the 24-item 3D eHLS-Web3.0, the Chinese version of the 8-item unidimensional eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), and demographic information. Follow-up measures included the 24-item eHLS-Web3.0 and accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary behavior. A series of statistical analyses, for example, Cronbach α, composite reliability coefficient (CR), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and multigroup CFA, were performed to examine the internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities, as well as the construct, concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities, and the measurement invariance of the eHLS-Web3.0 across gender, education level, and residence.
resultsCronbach α and CR were within acceptable ranges of 0.89-0.94 and 0.90-0.97, respectively, indicating adequate internal consistency of the eHLS-Web3.0 and its subscales. The eHLS-Web3.0 also demonstrated cross-time stability, with baseline and follow-up measures showing a significant intraclass correlation of 0.81-0.91. The construct validity of the 3D structure model of the eHLS-Web3.0 was supported by confirmatory factor analyses. The eHLS-Web3.0 exhibited convergent validity with an average variance extracted value of 0.58 and a CR value of 0.97. Discriminant validity was supported by CFA results for a proposed 4-factor model integrating the 3 eHLS-Web3.0 subscales and eHEALS. The predictive validity of the eHLS-Web3.0 for health behaviors was supported by significant associations of the eHLS-Web3.0 with light physical activity (β=.36, P=.004), moderate to vigorous physical activity (β=.49, P<.001), and sedentary behavior (β=-.26, P=.002). Finally, the measurement invariance of the eHLS-Web3.0 across gender, education level, and residence was supported by the establishment of configural, metric, strong, and strict invariances.
conclusionsThe present study provides timely empirical evidence on the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of the eHLS-Web3.0, suggesting that the 24-item 3D eHLS-Web3.0 is an appropriate and valid tool for measuring eHealth literacy among older adults with NCDs within the Web3.0 sphere.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.