ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
eHealth Literacy Assessment Instruments: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring eHealth Literacy in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Validation of the Updated Digital Health Literacy Instrument and Development of a Short Form: Online Survey Study of the General Population.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Revised Multidimensional Digital Health Literacy Scale: Secondary Analysis Using Cross-Sectional Data From the 2022 GetCheckedOnline Community Survey In British Columbia, Canada.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Why, how, and whether to assess digital health literacy.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: eHealth literacy is a necessary competency for individuals to achieve health self-management in the digital age, and the evaluation of eHealth literacy is an important foundation for clarifying individual eHealth literacy levels and implementing eHealth behavior interventions. Objective: This study reviews the research progress of eHealth literacy assessment instruments to offer suggestions for further development and improvement as well as to provide a reference to eHealth intervention. Methods: We reviewed papers on Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCO in English between 2006 and 2024 and included studies involving the development of eHealth literacy assessment instruments, which must be published in peer-reviewed journals. An analysis in terms of the development process, instrument characteristics, and assessment themes was conducted to reveal the content, features, and application of currently available eHealth literacy assessment instruments. Results: Searches yielded 2972 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. The analysis of the 13 studies indicated that the development of instruments is improving constantly, as the concept of eHealth literacy evolves. In total, 9 of the 13 tools are subjective assessments, with eHealth Literacy Scale being the most widely used. In contrast, the remaining 4 comprehensive assessment tools incorporate objective evaluation criteria. The 13 instruments' reliability ranged from 0.52 to 0.976. Validity was reported for 12 tools (excluding eHealth Literacy Scale), covering 5 types: content validity, structural validity, discriminant validity, external validity, and convergent validity. Regarding assessment themes, skill factors are involved in many instruments, but psychology factors and information factors are less concerned. Conclusions: The evaluation of the characteristics of existing eHealth literacy assessment tools in this paper can provide a reference for the selection of assessment tools. Overall, subjective and comprehensive assessment tools for eHealth literacy have their own advantages and disadvantages. Subjective assessment tools have a friendly evaluation method, but their test validity is relatively low. There is a risk of time-consuming and low recognition for comprehensive evaluation tools. Future research should be based on the deepening of eHealth literacy connotation, further verifying the effectiveness of existing eHealth literacy assessment tools and adding objective evaluation dimensions.
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.