Evidence mapPaperPMID 42040145Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Quantile regression analysis of the heterogeneous association between digital cultural engagement and health literacy: evidence from rural China.

Chenglin Du, Lanka Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 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

2 authors.

Chenglin DuCollege of Foreign Languages and Literature, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing, China.
Lanka WuSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management, University of Sanya, Sanya, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The digital divide limits rural residents' access to health information, and the potential of utilizing non healthy but culturally relevant digital resources to enhance health literacy is not yet clear. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,457 adults across 32 traditional villages in Chongqing, China. Intangible cultural heritage digital-resource use and health literacy were assessed using validated scales. Associations were examined using quantile regression, adjusted for sociodemographic, digital-infrastructure and health-status covariates. Mediation analysis and E-value tests were performed to probe mechanisms and assess robustness. Results: Higher use of digital resources of intangible cultural heritage was significantly related to higher health literacy scores, and this correlation existed in all subgroups. However, the strength of this association increased progressively along the health literacy distribution: it was strongest at the 90th percentile ( Conclusion: The association between intangible cultural heritage digital resource use and health literacy exhibits a cumulative advantage pattern, strengthening progressively across the health literacy distribution. This association is particularly pronounced in low-bandwidth villages and among older adults, with digital self-efficacy mediating approximately one-third of the total effect. These findings highlight a culturally grounded pathway to promote health equity through targeted digital inclusion strategies.

Indexed as

Digital DivideHealth LiteracyRural PopulationAdultChinaCross-Sectional StudiesDigital HealthDigital MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegression Analysisdigital cultural engagementdigital dividehealth equityhealth literacyintangible cultural heritage (ICH)quantile regressionrural China

Identifiers

PMID42040145
PMCPMC13102822

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.