Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults

Bo Xie, Bo Xie

Abstract

Background: Older adults generally have low health and computer literacies, making it challenging for them to function well in the eHealth era where technology is increasingly being used in health care. Little is known about effective interventions and strategies for improving the eHealth literacy of the older population.

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a theory-driven eHealth literacy intervention for older adults.

Methods: The experimental design was a 2 × 2 mixed factorial design with learning method (collaborative; individualistic) as the between-participants variable and time of measurement (pre; post) as the within-participants variable. A total of 146 older adults aged 56-91 (mean 69.99, SD 8.12) participated in this study during February to May 2011. The intervention involved 2 weeks of learning about using the National Institutes of Health's SeniorHealth.gov website to access reliable health information. The intervention took place at public libraries. Participants were randomly assigned to either experimental condition (collaborative: n = 72; individualistic: n = 74).

Results: Overall, participants' knowledge, skills, and eHealth literacy efficacy all improved significantly from pre to post intervention (P < .001 in all cases; effect sizes were >0.8 with statistical power of 1.00 even at the .01 level in all cases). When controlling for baseline differences, no significant main effect of the learning method was found on computer/Web knowledge, skills, or eHealth literacy efficacy. Thus, collaborative learning did not differ from individualistic learning in affecting the learning outcomes. No significant interaction effect of learning method and time of measurement was found. Group composition based on gender, familiarity with peers, or prior computer experience had no significant main or interaction effect on the learning outcomes. Regardless of the specific learning method used, participants had overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward the intervention and reported positive changes in participation in their own health care as a result of the intervention.

Conclusions: The findings provide strong evidence that the eHealth literacy intervention tested in this study, regardless of the specific learning method used, significantly improved knowledge, skills, and eHealth literacy efficacy from pre to post intervention, was positively perceived by participants, and led to positive changes in their own health care. Collaborative learning did not differ from individualistic learning in affecting the learning outcomes, suggesting the previously widely reported advantages of collaborative over individualistic learning may not be easily applied to the older population in informal settings, though several confounding factors might have contributed to this finding (ie, the largely inexperienced computer user composition of the study sample, potential instructor effect, and ceiling effect). Further research is necessary before a more firm conclusion can be drawn. These findings contribute to the literatures on adult learning, social interdependence theory, and health literacy.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared

References

    1. US Department of Health and Human Services . Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd edition. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000.
    1. Stvilia B, Mon L, Yong JY. A model for online consumer health information quality. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2009;60(9):1781–91. doi: 10.1002/asi.21115.
    1. Lustria MLA. Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(6):766–76. doi: 10.1002/asi.20557.
    1. Xie B, Bugg JM. Public library computer training for older adults to access high-quality Internet health information. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2009;31(3):155–62. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.03.004.
    1. Xie B. Older adults, e-health literacy, and collaborative learning: an experimental study. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(5):933–46. doi: 10.1002/asi.21507.
    1. Xie B. Experimenting on the impact of learning methods and information presentation channels on older adults' e-health literacy. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(9):1797–807. doi: 10.1002/asi.21575.
    1. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA, Institute of Medicine . Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
    1. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. National Center for Education Statistics. 2006. [2011-08-17]. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483) .
    1. Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What is eHealth?: a systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e1. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e1.
    1. Hernandez LM. Health Literacy, eHealth, and Communication: Putting the Consumer First: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
    1. Bylund CL, Sabee CM, Imes RS, Sanford AA. Exploration of the construct of reliance among patients who talk with their providers about internet information. J Health Commun. 2007;12(1):17–28. doi: 10.1080/10810730601091318.770176125
    1. Fox S. E-patients with a disability or chronic disease. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2007. Oct 08, [2011-10-29]. .
    1. Huntington P, Nicholas D, Jamali HR, Russell C. Health information for the consumer: NHS vs the BBC. Aslib Proc. 2007;59(1):46–67. doi: 10.1108/00012530710725205.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(2):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9. v8i2e9
    1. Jones S, Fox S. Generations online in 2009. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2009. Jan 28, [2011-10-29]. .
    1. Rideout V, Neuman T, Kitchman M, Brodie M. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2005. Jan, [2011-10-29]. e-Health and the Elderly: How Seniors Use the Internet for Health Information .
    1. Xie B. Older adults, health information, and the Internet. Interactions. 2008;15(4):44–6.
    1. Mika VS, Kelly PJ, Price MA, Franquiz M, Villarreal R. The ABCs of health literacy. Fam Community Health. 2005;28(4):351–7.00003727-200510000-00007
    1. Parker R, Kreps GL. Library outreach: overcoming health literacy challenges. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Oct;93(4 Suppl):S81–5.
    1. Andrus MR, Roth MT. Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy. 2002 Mar;22(3):282–302.
    1. Schaefer CT. Integrated review of health literacy interventions. Orthop Nurs. 2008;27(5):302–17. doi: 10.1097/01.NOR.0000337283.55670.75.00006416-200809000-00012
    1. Kickbusch I. Kickbusch Health Consult. 2004. [2011-08-17]. Background Paper: Improving Health Literacy in the European Union: Towards a Europe of Informed and Active Health Citizens .
    1. Norman CD. Skills essential for eHealth. In: Hernandez LM, editor. Health Literacy, eHealth, and Communication: Putting the Consumer First: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009. pp. 10–14.
    1. Xie B. Improving older adults' e-health literacy through computer training using NIH online resources. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2012
    1. Mayhorn CB, Stronge AJ, McLaughlin AC, Rogers WA. Older adults, computer training, and the systems approach: a formula for success. Educ Gerontol. 2004;30(3):185–203. doi: 10.1080/03601270490272124.
    1. Van Fleet C, Antell K. Creating cyber seniors: older adult learning and its implications for computer training. Public Libr. 2002;41:149–55.
    1. Jay GM, Willis SL. Influence of direct computer experience on older adults' attitudes toward computers. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1992;47(4):250–7.
    1. Cody MJ, Dunn D, Hoppin S, Wendt P. Silver surfers: Training and evaluating Internet use among older adult learners. Commun Educ. 1999;48(4):269–86.
    1. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Psychol Aging. 2006 Jun;21(2):333–52. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333.2006-07381-012
    1. Bean C. Meeting the challenge: training an aging population to use computers. Southeast Libr. 2003;51(3):16–25.
    1. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004;93(3):223–31.
    1. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report Series No. 1. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass; 1991.
    1. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K. Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? Change. 1998;30:27–35.
    1. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K. The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007;19(1):15–29. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8.
    1. Strough J, Margrett JA. Overview of the special section on collaborative cognition in later adulthood. Int J Behav Dev. 2002;26(1):2–5. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000300.
    1. Elias JW, Wagster MV. Developing context and background underlying cognitive intervention/training studies in older populations. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007 Jun;62 Spec No 1:5–10.62/suppl_Special_Issue_1/5
    1. Meegan S, Berg CA. Contexts, functions, forms, and processes of collaborative everyday problem solving in older adulthood. Int J Behav Dev. 2002;26(1):6–15. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000283.
    1. Fried LP, Carlson MC, Freedman M, Frick KD, Glass TA, Hill J, McGill S, Rebok GW, Seeman T, Tielsch J, Wasik BA, Zeger S. A social model for health promotion for an aging population: initial evidence on the Experience Corps model. J Urban Health. 2004;81(1):64–78. doi: 10.1093/jurban/jth094.
    1. Stine-Morrow EA, Parisi JM, Morrow DG, Park DC. The effects of an engaged lifestyle on cognitive vitality: a field experiment. Psychol Aging. 2008 Dec;23(4):778–86. doi: 10.1037/a0014341.2008-19072-011
    1. Andersson J, Ronnberg J. Recall suffers from collaboration: joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1995;9(3):199–211. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350090303.
    1. Andersson J, Ronnberg J. Collaboration and memory: effects of dyadic retrieval on different memory tasks. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1996;10(2):171–81. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199604).
    1. Margrett JA, Willis SL. In-home cognitive training with older married couples: individual versus collaborative learning. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2006 Jun;13(2):173–95. doi: 10.1080/138255890969285.QN51624RM2442Q40
    1. Gould O, Kurzman D, Dixon RA. Communication during prose recall conversations by young and old dyads. Discourse Process. 1994;17(1):149–65. doi: 10.1080/01638539409544863.
    1. Maskit D, Hertz-Lazarowitz R. Adults in cooperative learning: effects of group size and group gender composition on group learning. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; April 16-20, 1986; San Francisco, CA, USA. 1986.
    1. Busch T. Gender, group composition, cooperation, and self-efficacy in computer studies. J Educ Comput Res. 1996;15(2):125–35.
    1. Underwood G, McCaffrey M, Underwood J. Gender differences in a cooperative computer-based language task. Educ Res. 1990;13:21–39.
    1. Margrett JA, Marsiske M. Gender differences in older adults' everyday cognitive collaboration. Int J Behav Dev. 2002 Jan;26(1):45–59. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000319.
    1. Charness N, Kelley CL, Bosman EA, Mottram M. Word-processing training and retraining: effects of adult age, experience, and interface. Psychol Aging. 2001 Mar;16(1):110–27.
    1. Nair SN, Czaja SJ, Sharit J. A multilevel modeling approach to examining individual differences in skill acquisition for a computer-based task. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007 Jun;62 Spec No 1:85–96.62/suppl_Special_Issue_1/85
    1. Czaja SJ, Lee CC. Charness N, Parks DC, Sabel BA, editors. Communication, Technology and Aging: Opportunities and Challenges for the Future. New York, NY: Springer; 2001. The Internet and older adults: design challenges and opportunities; pp. 60–78.
    1. Zandri E, Charness N. Training older and younger adults to use software. Educ Gerontol. 1989;15(6):615–31. doi: 10.1080/0380127890150606.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27. v8i4e27
    1. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
    1. Pace RC, Kuh GD. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, School of Education. 1988. [2011-10-29]. College Student Experiences Questionnaires .
    1. Fox S. Online health search 2006. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2006. Oct 29, [2011-08-17]. .
    1. NIHSeniorHealth National Institute on Aging. 2010. Oct 12, [2011-08-19]. Helping Older Adults Search for Health Information Online: A Toolkit for Trainers .
    1. Childs S. Judging the quality of Internet-based health information. Perform Meas Metr. 2005;6(2):80–96. doi: 10.1108/14678040510607803.
    1. Kunst H, Groot D, Latthe PM, Latthe M, Khan KS. Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: survey of five common health topics. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):581–2.
    1. Morrell RW, Dailey SR, Rousseau GK. Charness N, Warner Schaie K, editors. Impact of Technology on Successful Aging. New York, NY: Springer; 2003. Applying research: the project; pp. 134–61.
    1. Xie B. Older adults' health information wants in the internet age: implications for patient-provider relationships. J Health Commun. 2009 Sep;14(6):510–24. doi: 10.1080/10810730903089614.914435410
    1. Williamson K. Discovered by chance: the role of incidental information acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Libr Inf Sci Res. 1998;20(1):23–40. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.03.004.
    1. Asla T, Williamson K, Mills J. The role of information in successful aging: the case for a research focus on the oldest old. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2006;28(1):49–63. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2005.11.005.
    1. Birren J, Warner Schaie K. Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. 3rd edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1990.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co; 1991.
    1. Springer L, Stanne M, Donovan S. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 1999;69(1):21–52. doi: 10.3102/00346543069001021.
    1. Brody DS. The patient's role in clinical decision-making. Ann Intern Med. 1980 Nov;93(5):718–22.
    1. Jones JA, Phillips GM. Communicating With Your Doctor: Rx for Good Medical Care. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press; 1988.
    1. Ballard-Reisch DS. A model of participative decision making for physician-patient interaction. Health Commun. 1990;2(2):91–104. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc0202_3.
    1. McNutt RA. Shared medical decision making: problems, process, progress. JAMA. 2004 Nov 24;292(20):2516–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.20.2516.292/20/2516
    1. Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients' preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med. 1998;24(2):81–8. doi: 10.1080/08964289809596384.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren