The e-health literacy framework: A conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems

Nørgaard, Ole; Furstrand, Dorthe; Klokker, Louise; Karnoe, Astrid; Batterham, Roy; Kayser, Lars; Osborne, Richard H.

doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.035

Cited by 86 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(3) Ability to actively engage with digital services; (4) Feel safe and in control; (5) Motivated to engage with digital services; (6) Access to digital services that work; and (7) Digital services that suit individual needs (44,45). Validity testing of the tool showed satisfactory evidence of construct validity and reliability across various settings (45).…”

Section: The Ehealth Literacy Questionnaire (Ehlq)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-designing eHealth and Equity Solutions: Application of the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) Process

Cheng

Elsworth

Osborne

2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The unequal access, challenges and outcomes related to using technology have created the digital divide, which leads to health inequalities. The aim of this study was to apply the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) process, a widely used systematic approach to whole of community co-design, to the digital context to generate solutions to improve health and equity outcomes.Methods: This was a mixed method study. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken at 3 health organizations in Victoria, Australia using the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) as a needs assessment tool. Cluster analysis was conducted to identify subgroups with varying eHealth literacy needs. These data, combined with semi-structured interviews with clients, were used to generate vignettes representing different eHealth literacy profiles. The vignettes were presented at co-design workshops with clients and health professionals to generate solutions for digital health services improvement. Expert validation and proof-of-concept testing was explored through mapping the process against Ophelia guiding principles.Results: The cluster analyses identified 8 to 9 clusters with different profiles of eHealth literacy needs, with 4 to 6 vignettes developed to represent the eHealth literacy strengths and weaknesses of clients at each of the 3 sites. A total of 32, 43, and 32 solutions across 10 strategies were co-created based on ideas grounded in local expertise and experiences. Apart from digital solutions, non-digital solutions were frequently recommended as a strategy to address eHealth literacy needs. Expert validation identified at least half of the ideas were very important and feasible, while most of the guiding principles of the Ophelia process were successfully applied.Conclusion: By harnessing collective creativity through co-design, the Ophelia process has been shown to assist the development of solutions with the potential to improve health and equity outcomes in the digital context. Implementation of the solutions is needed to provide further evidence of the impact of the process. The suggested inclusion of non-digital solutions revealed through the co-design process reminds health organizations and policymakers that solutions should be flexible enough to suit individual needs. As such, taking a co-design approach to digital health initiatives will assist in preventing the widening of health inequalities.

show abstract

Section: The Ehealth Literacy Questionnaire (Ehlq)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-designing eHealth and Equity Solutions: Application of the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) Process

Cheng

Elsworth

Osborne

2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We noticed that the users are highly perceptive to any inconsistency in the answers from different physicians, and we quickly identify any disruption in the sense of safety and security among the users. Fear and insecurity are directly articulated in the questions and comments, which confirms that feeling safe and in control is key to being eHealth-literate [13].…”

Section: The Facebook Groupmentioning

confidence: 59%

“Ask a Doctor About Coronavirus”: How Physicians on Social Media Can Provide Valid Health Information During a Pandemic

Furstrand¹,

Pihl²,

Orbe³

et al. 2021

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the information stream has overflowed with accurate information, misinformation, and constantly changing guidelines. There is a great need for guidance on the identification of trustworthy health information, and official channels are struggling to keep pace with this infodemic. Consequently, a Facebook group was created where volunteer medical physicians would answer laypeople’s questions about the 2019 novel coronavirus. There is not much precedence in health care professional–driven Facebook groups, and the framework was thus developed continuously. We ended up with an approach without room for debate, which fostered a sense of calmness, trust, and safety among the questioners. Substantial moderator effort was needed to ensure high quality and consistency through collaboration among the presently >200 physicians participating in this group. At the time of writing, the group provides a much-needed service to >58,000 people in Denmark during this crisis.

show abstract

“…Therefore, eliciting user preferences and understanding which kinds of WTPs are deemed effective seems crucial for future practice. This current shortcoming has also been pointed out with respect to eHealth concepts more generally [20,39,40]. Better adaptation of WTPs to user preferences may finally lead to a better use of such services as part of the doctor-patient communication process [41].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Publicly Available Allergy-Specific Web-Based Training Programs Conform to the Established Criteria for the Reporting, Methods, and Content of Evidence-Based (Digital) Health Information and Education: Thematic Content Evaluation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAllergic diseases, such as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and atopic eczema, are widespread, and they are a considerable burden on the health care system. For patients and health care professionals, Web-based training programs may be helpful to foster self-management and provide allergy-specific information, given, for instance, their good accessibility.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess an exploratory sample of publicly available allergy-specific Web-based training programs—that is, interactive, feedback-oriented Web-based training platforms promoting health behavior change and improvement of personal skills—with regard to (1) general characteristics, aims, and target groups and (2) the extent to which these tools meet established criteria for the reporting, methods, and content of evidence-based (digital) health information and education.MethodsWeb-based training programs were identified via an initial Google search and a search of English and German language websites of medical and public health services, such as the European Centre for Allergy Research Foundation (German), Asthma UK, and Anaphylaxis Canada. We developed a checklist from (1) established guidelines for Web-based health information (eg, the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmarks, DISCERN criteria, and Health On the Net code) and (2) a database search of related studies. The checklist contained 44 items covering 11 domains in 3 areas: (1) content (completeness, transparency, and evidence), (2) structure (data safety and qualification of trainers and authors), and (3) impact (effectiveness, user perspective, and integration into health care). We rated the Web-based training programs as completely, partly, or not satisfying each checklist item and calculated overall and domain-specific scores for each Web-based training program using SPSS 23.0 (SPSS Inc).ResultsThe 15 identified Web-based training programs covered an average of 37% of the items (score 33 out of 88). A total of 7 Web-based training programs covered more than 40% (35/88; maximum: 49%; 43/88). A total of 5 covered 30% (26/88) to 40% (35/88) of all rated items and the rest covered fewer (n=3; lowest score 24%; 21/88). Items relating to intervention (58%; 10/18), content (49%; 9/18), and data safety (60%; 1/2) were more often considered, as opposed to user safety (10%; 0.4/4), qualification of staff (10%; 0.8/8), effectiveness (16%; 0.4/2), and user perspective (45%; 5/12). In addition, in 13 of 15 Web-based training programs, a minimum of 3 domains were not covered at all. Regarding evidence-based content, 46% of all Web-based training programs (7/15) scored on use of scientific research, 53% on regular information update (8/15), and 33% on provision of references (5/15). None of 15 provided details on the quality of references or the strength of evidence.ConclusionsEnglish and German language allergy-specific Web-based training programs, addressing lay audiences and health care professionals, conform only partly to established criteria for the reporting, methods,...

show abstract

The e-health literacy framework: A conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems

Cited by 86 publications

References 23 publications

Co-designing eHealth and Equity Solutions: Application of the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) Process

Co-designing eHealth and Equity Solutions: Application of the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) Process

“Ask a Doctor About Coronavirus”: How Physicians on Social Media Can Provide Valid Health Information During a Pandemic

How Do Publicly Available Allergy-Specific Web-Based Training Programs Conform to the Established Criteria for the Reporting, Methods, and Content of Evidence-Based (Digital) Health Information and Education: Thematic Content Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About