Evidence mapPaperPMID 39600383Full record

ArticleDigital health

Digitisation and health: Second nationwide survey of internet users in Germany.

Karina Karolina De Santis, Saskia Muellmann, Chen-Chia Pan, Stephanie Hoffmann, Jacob Spallek, Ulrike Haug, Hajo Zeeb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for health services research and practice - Part II].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

7 authors.

Karina Karolina De SantisDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7647-6767
Saskia MuellmannDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Chen-Chia PanLeibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Stephanie HoffmannDepartment of Public Health, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany.
Jacob SpallekDepartment of Public Health, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany.
Ulrike HaugLeibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Hajo ZeebDepartment of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Rapid digitisation of health occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. In October 2020, we conducted a survey on digital health technology use in Germany. This study aimed to conduct a second survey to investigate in more detail the internet use in health context and digital technology use for health promotion and disease prevention in Germany. Methods: A cross-sectional, nationwide telephone survey was conducted in November 2022. Anonymous data on internet and digital technology use, digital health literacy, and sociodemographic characteristics were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regressions. Results: The 1020 participants were aged 18-92 years, 53% were male, 62% completed primary or secondary education, 71% resided in large cities, and 45% reported a country-average net household income. Overall, 61% reported internet use in health context via 1-4 devices. Among those, more than 50% used the internet and apps to obtain general health information and less than 50% used digital technologies for physical activity promotion or cancer prevention. Overall, 34% were confident in using the internet for health decisions and 71% preferred to receive health information non-digitally (e.g. on paper). Internet, app, and digital technology use were associated with higher digital health literacy and income, and residence in larger cities. Digital technologies were used for physical activity promotion by younger and for cancer prevention by older participants. Conclusion: The internet and digital technologies were predominantly used to obtain health information, but less often for health promotion and disease prevention in 2022 in Germany. While health app and digital technology use for physical activity promotion increased, the confidence in using online information for health decisions decreased in 2022 relative to 2020. Factors that promote confidence in online health information and digital technology use for health promotion and disease prevention need to be investigated in future studies.

Indexed as

attitudeDigital healthdigital health literacydisease preventionGermanyhealth promotioninternet userpreferencesurveyusage

Identifiers

PMID39600383
PMCPMC11590152

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.