ArticleClinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH2025
Assessment of eHealth Literacy in Healthcare Service Users: Construction and Validation of a Measurement Instrument.
Article in Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: eHealth literacy is influenced by Internet access and is associated with health status. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an instrument called eHealth-Much to measure eHealth literacy in users of healthcare services. Methods: An instrumental research design was used. Content validity was assessed by expert judgment and quantified using Aiken's V coefficient. A polychoric correlation matrix was used for the items. Sample adequacy was assessed through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index and Bartlett's test of sphericity before conducting exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The EFA was conducted using the Weighted Least Squares (WLS) extraction method with Oblimin rotation. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha (α) and McDonald's Omega (ω) coefficients. Results: Twelve experts from five different countries participated in the content validation process, obtaining a V coefficient of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.79-0.97). A total of 1,068 health service users of both sexes participated in the construct validity testing. The median age was 32 years (IQR: 13, Q1: 26, Q3: 39; Min: 17, Max: 78). The KMO index was 0.92 (Bartlett's test, p < 0.001). The EFA suggested four factors labeled "Digital Literacy" (WLS1), "Digital Self-Management" (WLS4), "Digital Skill" (WLS3), and "Scientific Empowerment" (WLS2), which together explained 59.3% of the total variance. The reliability coefficients obtained were 0.86 for Cronbach's alpha and 0.90 for McDonald's omega. Percentile ranks and normative scores were also established for the sample. Discussion: The factorial structure obtained theoretically supports the multidimensionality of the construct, aligning with previous models of digital health literacy. Conclusion: The scale demonstrates adequate levels of validity and reliability. It may be considered a viable option for use in both primary care settings and hospital environments. Further studies are recommended to expand the psychometric analysis.
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.