SynthesisJMIR human factors2025
Tailoring for Health Literacy in the Design and Development of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of mHealth Interventions for Improving eHealth Literacy Among Patients With Chronic Diseases: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Co-design rationales as living documents for reporting the exchange of experiential, professional and scientific perspectives in mental health care innovation.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Social support, health literacy, perceived control, and health-promoting behaviors in young and middle-aged lung cancer surgical patients: a structural equation model analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The Design Rationale and Preliminary Evaluation of a Prototype Designed by People With Lived Experience of Psychosis and Professionals: Design Research Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tailoring is an important strategy to improve uptake and efficacy of medical information and guidance provided through eHealth interventions. Given the rapid expansion of eHealth, understanding the design rationale of such tailored interventions is vital for further development of and research into eHealth interventions aimed at improving health and healthy behavior. Objective: This systematic review examines the use of health literacy concepts through tailoring strategies in digital health interventions (eHealth) aimed at improving health and how these elements inform the overall design rationale. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ACM databases yielded 31 eligible randomized trials that focused on adult health improvement through eHealth interventions. Eligible studies compared tailored versus nontailored eHealth interventions for adults, excluding non-English papers and those addressing solely readability or targeting populations with accessibility barriers. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, health literacy components, tailoring methods, and design rationales, with study quality evaluated using Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) by independent reviewers. Results: Most interventions applied both cognitive and social health literacy concepts and predominantly used content matching as a tailoring strategy. Of all studies using content matching, most used one or more supporting theories as well as end-user data to inform the content matching. While choices for individual intervention components were mostly explicated, detailed descriptions of the design process were scarce, with only a few studies articulating an underlying narrative that integrated the most important chosen components. Conclusions: While tailored eHealth interventions demonstrate promise in enhancing health literacy and the trial design of the interventions overall was of good quality, inconsistent documentation of design rationales impedes replicability and broader application of the used eHealth concepts. This calls for more detailed reporting on the design choices of the intervention in efficacy studies, so that reported outcomes can be easier connected to choices made in the design of the eHealth intervention.
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.