ArticlePloS one2025
Digital health literacy is linked to attitudes regarding the ethical aspects of digital health among patients with dermatologic comorbidities.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital health literacy (DHL), also known as eHealth literacy, refers to an individual's ability to locate, understand, evaluate, and apply health information from electronic sources to make informed health decisions. This skill is increasingly regarded as essential for navigating the modern healthcare landscape, promoting health equity, and improving health outcomes. The study objective was to establish an association between DHL and dermatologic outpatients' attitudes regarding ethical aspects of digital health. Additionally, we validated a questionnaire designed to assess these bioethical attitudes. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed in two phases (April 2024-December 2024). Phase-1 consisted of validating the Bioethical Attitudes toward Digital Health questionnaire (BADH). Phase-2 evaluated the association between the eHEALS (it assesses a person's ability to use digital health resources) and BADH scores. Three convenience samples of consecutive patients were used: S-1 included 46 patients who participated in a pilot testing, S-2 included 100 patients who participated in the BADH validation and S-3 included 120 patients and was used to investigate the association between DHL and bioethical attitudes. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis were used.
resultsThe 8-item BADH was found to be feasible, valid, and reliable. The exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure, consisting of trust and privacy dimensions, which accounted for 59.8% of the total variance. This structure was subsequently validated through confirmatory factor analysis. The BADH reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.686 and ICC of 0.684 (95% CI: 0.581-0.770). A positive linear association was identified between the eHEALS and the BADH scores (β = 0.465, 95%CI: 0.218-0.450, p < 0.001). This relationship was evident with the trust dimension of the BADH (β = 0.526, 95%CI: 0.206-0.379, p < 0.001), but not with the privacy dimension.
conclusionsDHL is associated with individual moral positions regarding digital health, particularly those concerning trust. The BADH questionnaire has adequate psychometric properties.
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.