ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Evaluating adult digital health literacy, 2020-2025: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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.
- AI Chatbots vs. Traditional Sources: Dental Health Literacy and Confidence Among Dental Patients-A Cross-Sectional Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Health Literacy is Not just Reading Ability: Rethinking Cancer Education for Older Adults.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- "Health literacy, health behavior, and demographic determinants of BMI status among pre-older adults: a cross-sectional study".BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- User perceptions of individually-tailored health information in digital apps: development of a scale.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
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
Online/digital health literacy is important for individuals to evaluate the influence of such input in their care and consent for treatment. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the digital health literacy level among adults in studies that used the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) as a measure of digital health literacy. The authors searched Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for evidence following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement, 2020 (PRISMA). Included were articles in which the researchers evaluated the level of digital health literacy using eHEALS, were peer reviewed, written in English or in which English translation was provided, and were published between 2020-2025. There were 200 articles initially identified in the search, 180 were excluded resulting in a sample of 20 publications. EHEALS scores, with possibilities from 8-40, had a weighted mean of 24.3 (95%CI: 17.1-31.6). The lowest mean score was 12.57; and the highest mean score was 35.1. The highest eHEALS score was from a qualitative interview study. Nine other studies reported overall means ≥ 30. There were three with eHEALS scores below 20. Globally, there is a wide range of reported digital health literacy levels. It is critical that the public gains skill and confidence in digital health literacy for healthcare decisions. The results of this study provide evidence of a large range of digital health literacy.
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.