Healthcare professionals’ digital health competence and its core factors; development and psychometric testing of two instruments

Jarva, Erika; Oikarinen, Anne; Andersson, Johan; Tomietto, Marco; Kääriäinen, Maria; Mikkonen, Kristina

doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.104995

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be related to physicians’ prior digital training and higher level of education, which may be associated with higher eHealth literacy [ 38 ]. These results support previous research reporting that health care providers with higher level of education are more willing to improve their digital health competence [ 4 , 47 ]. This indicate that hospital health care providers’ eHealth literacy strengths and limitations should be considered when developing eHealth resources.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In the last decade, digital solutions of service provision and working methods have changed health care providers’ competence requirements [ 4 ]. With the growing use of digital technology in the last decade, the concept of digital health competency has received considerable attention [ 4 – 6 ], while the concept of electronic health (eHealth) literacy is still unexplored among health care providers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

eHealth literacy among hospital health care providers: a systematic review

Brørs,

Larsen,

Hølvold

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background eHealth literacy is a key concept in the implementation of eHealth resources. However, most eHealth literacy definitions and frameworks are designed from the perceptive of the individual receiving eHealth care, which do not include health care providers’ eHealth literacy or acceptance of delivering eHealth resources. Aims To identify existing research on eHealth literacy domains and measurements and identify eHealth literacy scores and associated factors among hospital health care providers. Methods This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, AMED and Web of Science. Quantitative studies assessing eHealth literacy with original research, targeting hospital health care providers were included. Three eHealth literacy domains based on the eHealth literacy framework were defined a priori; (1) Individual eHealth literacy, (2) Interaction with the eHealth system, and (3) Access to the system. Pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility, appraised methodological quality and extracted data. Results Fourteen publications, of which twelve publications were conducted in non-Western countries, were included. In total, 3,666 health care providers within eleven different professions were included, with nurses being the largest group. Nine of the included studies used the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) to measure eHealth literacy, representing the domain of individual eHealth literacy. A minority of the studies covered domains such as interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. The mean eHEALS score in the studies ranged from 27.8 to 31.7 (8–40), indicating a higher eHealth literacy. One study reported desirable eHealth literacy based on the Digital Health Literacy Instrument. Another study reported a relatively high score on the Staff eHealth literacy questionnaire. eHealth literacy was associated with socio-demographic factors, experience of technology, health behaviour and work-related factors. Conclusions Health care providers have good individual eHealth literacy. However, more research is needed on the eHealth literacy domains dependent on interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. Furthermore, most studies were conducted in Eastern and Central-Africa, and more research is thus needed in a Western context. Trial registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022363039).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

eHealth literacy among hospital health care providers: a systematic review

Brørs,

Larsen,

Hølvold

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 2 shows the key data of the included papers. [25] Health care professionals Meta-analysis Australia 2020 Butler-Henderson et al [26] Health science lecturers Quantitative study Spain 2021 Cabero-Almenara et al [27] Students of health professions Quantitative study Australia 2022 Cham et al [28] Optometry students Framework development Australia 2019 Coldwell-Neilson et al [9] Health care professionals Qualitative interview United Kingdom 2014 Evangelinos and Holley [29] Medical students Quantitative study Germany 2022 Faihs et al [30] Health care professionals Quantitative study Switzerland 2021 Golz et al [31] Pharmacists Quantitative study Lebanon 2020 Hallit et al [32] Health care professionals Scoping review United States 2021 Hilty et al [33] Nursing students Quantitative study Denmark 2020 Holt et al [34] Health care professionals Qualitative interview Finland 2022 Jarva et al [35] Health care professionals Questionnaire development Finland 2023 Jarva et al [36] Health care professionals Scoping review Singapore 2020 Jimenez et al [37] Health care professionals Scoping review Chile 2023 Jose et al [38] Nurses Quantitative study Finland 2021 Kaihlanen et al [39] Health care professionals Quantitative study Denmark 2022 Kayser et al [40] Nursing students Quantitative study South Korea 2020 Kim and Jeon [41] Health care professionals Systematic review Finland 2019 Konttila et al [42] Health care professionals Quantitative study Australia 2020 Kuek and Hakkennes [11] Health care professionals Systematic review Italy 2022 Longhini et al […”

Section: Characteristics Of Sources Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was a strong focus on skills in the formulated definitions of digital competence [9,21,22,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]35,36,39,40,42,43 [4,10,11,21,24,27,28,[30][31][32][33]36,42,47,49,54,59]. Other papers (6/46, 13%) added that former experiences with digital topics play a crucial role in forming competence [28,31,40,42,43,46].…”

Section: Most Of the Papers Provided Definitions In Which Digital Com...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Digital Competence of Health Professionals: Scoping Review

Mainz,

Nitsche,

Weirauch

et al. 2024

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Digital competence is listed as one of the key competences for lifelong learning and is increasing in importance not only in private life but also in professional life. There is consensus within the health care sector that digital competence (or digital literacy) is needed in various professional fields. However, it is still unclear what exactly the digital competence of health professionals should include and how it can be measured. Objective This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the common definitions of digital literacy in scientific literature in the field of health care and the existing measurement instruments. Methods Peer-reviewed scientific papers from the last 10 years (2013-2023) in English or German that deal with the digital competence of health care workers in both outpatient and inpatient care were included. The databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, OpenAIRE, ERIC, OAIster, Cochrane Library, CAMbase, APA PsycNet, and Psyndex were searched for literature. The review follows the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, and the description of the results is based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Results The initial search identified 1682 papers, of which 46 (2.73%) were included in the synthesis. The review results show that there is a strong focus on technical skills and knowledge with regard to both the definitions of digital competence and the measurement tools. A wide range of competences were identified within the analyzed works and integrated into a validated competence model in the areas of technical, methodological, social, and personal competences. The measurement instruments mainly used self-assessment of skills and knowledge as an indicator of competence and differed greatly in their statistical quality. Conclusions The identified multitude of subcompetences illustrates the complexity of digital competence in health care, and existing measuring instruments are not yet able to reflect this complexity.

show abstract

“…theory (Project Format) on the development of digital competencies(Hofstetter et al 2023a;Becka et al 2020;Jarva et al 2023; Nazeha et al 2020). This comparison revealed that corresponding further education programs, which understand the conveyance of digital competency as a crosssectional skill and thus aim for sustainable, connectable development, are underrepresented.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the further training “Beratende für digitale Gesundheitsversorgung” (“Consultant for Digital Healthcare”): Protocol for an effectiveness study (Preprint)

Kraft,

Kuscher,

Zawatzki

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The digital transformation in healthcare requires training nursing and health professionals in the digitally competent use of digital-assistive technologies (DAT). The further educational training “Beratende für digitale Gesundheitsversorgung” (“Consultant for Digital Healthcare”) was developed to fill this gap. The effectiveness of the training program will be assessed by this study. OBJECTIVE The primary objective is to record and measure the learning success of the participants. It is assessed whether the previously defined teaching intentions, learning objectives, competencies, expectations of the participants have been achieved and whether there has been a transfer of learning. The secondary objective is the satisfaction of the participants and the feasibility of the training. The tertiary objective is the transfer success of the participants of DAT in the institutions. METHODS Approximately 65 nursing and health care professionals will participate in the piloting phase of the further training and take part in the evaluation process, which is planned in a mixed-method design. It is planned to conduct pre-post surveys in the form of self-assessments of the participants in dealing with DAT as well as on content-related knowledge levels. In addition, exploratory individual interviews will be conducted to build theory. Here, it will be examined whether and to what extent an increase in competence (cognition) has taken place and whether a change in dealing (affect) with DAT has occurred. Furthermore, there will be an interim evaluation within the framework of the Teaching Analysis Poll (TAP). The knowledge thereby gained will then be used to revise and adapt the modules for future courses. To assess the transfer success the participants create a practical project, which is carried out within the framework of the training, observed by the lecturers and subsequently evaluated and adapted. RESULTS It is to be expected that the learning objectives aimed for through the further training will be met. The attendees are expected to increase their level of digital competence along different skills areas. First, concerning their theoretical knowledge, second, concerning their hand-on skills planning the application and practical usage of DAT, third, their reflective skills, applying ethical and legal considerations in their usage, forth, to apply all that in a structured process of technology implementation within their practical sphere of work. CONCLUSIONS The aim of this study and the appropriate further training program is to educate nursing and health care professionals in the use of DAT and thereby empower them for a structured change process towards a digitally aided care. This focus gives rise to following research question associated by it. First, how do further training programs need to be developed and which focus is appropriate for addressee-appropriate learning goals, course structure and the general curriculum. Second, how should a training program with this specific content and area be evaluated? And thirdly, what are the conditions for a continued program offer?

show abstract

Healthcare professionals’ digital health competence and its core factors; development and psychometric testing of two instruments

Cited by 19 publications

References 40 publications

eHealth literacy among hospital health care providers: a systematic review

eHealth literacy among hospital health care providers: a systematic review

Measuring the Digital Competence of Health Professionals: Scoping Review

Evaluation of the further training “Beratende für digitale Gesundheitsversorgung” (“Consultant for Digital Healthcare”): Protocol for an effectiveness study (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About