Evidence mapPaperPMID 41923375Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Validation of the Updated Digital Health Literacy Instrument and Development of a Short Form: Online Survey Study of the General Population.

Rosalie van der Vaart, Inge Tuitert, Job van 't Veer, Constance Drossaert

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rosalie van der VaartCentre of Expertise Health Innovation, Technology for Health Care Research Group, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Johanna Westerdijkplein 75, Den Haag, 2521 EN, The Netherlands, 31 0614188052.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8787-4186
Inge TuitertDepartment of Health and Social Studies, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6338-3131
Job van 't VeerDepartment of Health and Social Studies, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1872-9209
Constance DrossaertDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7083-3169

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The digital health literacy instrument (DHLI) was developed in 2017 to measure individuals' ability to access, understand, evaluate, and apply online health information. Since that time, digital health has shifted from desktop-based internet use to mobile devices, and there has been a rapidly expanding range of health apps. Additionally, heightened privacy and data security requirements have increased the complexity of user competencies needed to engage with digital health tools. These developments underscore the need to update the original DHLI. Objective: This study aimed to create an updated version of the DHLI (DHLI 2.0) that reflects current digital health practices and to examine its reliability and validity by exploring associations with user characteristics. Additionally, we aimed to develop a short-form version to facilitate broader use in research and practice. Methods: The instrument was iteratively updated and pilot-tested to retain the original theoretical framework while reflecting current digital health practices, devices, and emerging challenges such as mobile use and data security. Several items were reworded and a new 2-item subscale on digital safety was added. The full DHLI 2.0 comprises 24 items across 8 skill domains. A 16-item short form was developed by iteratively removing 1 or 2 items per subscale based on the "α if item deleted" criterion, while retaining the same subscale structure as the full form. Data to validate the new version of the instrument were collected in June 2024 through an online survey among members of a representative citizen panel in Friesland, a province in the Netherlands (N=2728). Sociodemographics, internet and health-related internet use, general health literacy (measured with the Single Item Literacy Screener), self-reported health, and health care use were assessed. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach α, and construct validity was assessed via Spearman ρ correlations with related constructs. Results: Internal consistency was high for both the full (α=0.94) and short-form (α=0.90) scales. Most subscales showed satisfactory to excellent reliability (α=0.71-0.93), while "Securing privacy" and "Using security measures" demonstrated moderate reliability (α=0.65-0.66). The DHLI 2.0 total scores were approximately normally distributed (skewness -0.5; kurtosis 0.4). As expected, digital health literacy was negatively correlated with age (ρ=-0.39, P<.001) and positively correlated with education (ρ=0.22, P<.001), income (ρ=0.27, P<.001), time spent online (ρ=0.32, P<.001), and general health literacy (ρ=-0.42, P<.001). Conclusions: The DHLI 2.0 provides an updated, reliable, and valid measure of digital health literacy covering 8 key domains, including data security. The 16-item short form offers a concise alternative suitable for research and possibly practical applications in health and eHealth contexts.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyAdolescentAdultAgedDigital HealthFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultdigital health literacy skillseHealthhealth informationinstrumentmeasurementvalidation

Identifiers

PMID41923375
PMCPMC13043908

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.