Psychometric Properties of the Norwegian Version of the Electronic Health Literacy Scale (eHEALS) Among Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Cross-Sectional Validation Study

Gunhild Brørs, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, Håvard Dalen, Tina B Hansen, Cameron D Norman, Astrid Wahl, Tone M Norekvål, CONCARD Investigators, Gunhild Brørs, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, Håvard Dalen, Tina B Hansen, Cameron D Norman, Astrid Wahl, Tone M Norekvål, CONCARD Investigators

Abstract

Background: Web-based technology has recently become an important source for sharing health information with patients after an acute cardiac event. Therefore, consideration of patients' perceived electronic health (eHealth) literacy skills is crucial for improving the delivery of patient-centered health information.

Objective: The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) to conditions in Norway, and to determine its psychometric properties. More specifically, we set out to determine the reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and construct validity (structural validity, hypotheses testing, and cross-cultural validity) of the eHEALS in self-report format administered to patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods: The original English version of the eHEALS was translated into Norwegian following a widely used cross-cultural adaptation process. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach α. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for a priori-specified 1-, 2-, and 3-factor models. Demographic, health-related internet use, health literacy, and health status information was collected to examine correlations with eHEALS scores.

Results: A total of 1695 patients after percutaneous coronary intervention were included in the validation analysis. The mean age was 66 years, and the majority of patients were men (1313, 77.46%). Cronbach α for the eHEALS was >.99. The corresponding Cronbach α for the 2-week retest was .94. The test-retest ICC for eHEALS was 0.605 (95% CI 0.419-0.743, P<.001). The CFA showed a modest model fit for the 1- and 2-factor models (root mean square error of approximation>0.06). After modifications in the 3-factor model, all of the goodness-of-fit indices indicated a good fit. There was a weak correlation with age (r=-0.206). Between-groups analysis of variance showed a difference according to educational groups and the eHEALS score, with a mean difference ranging from 2.24 (P=.002) to 4.61 (P<.001), and a higher eHEALS score was found for patients who were employed compared to those who were retired (mean difference 2.31, P<.001). The eHEALS score was also higher among patients who reported using the internet to find health information (95% CI -21.40 to -17.21, P<.001), and there was a moderate correlation with the patients' perceived usefulness (r=0.587) and importance (r=0.574) of using the internet for health information. There were also moderate correlations identified between the eHEALS score and the health literacy domains appraisal of health information (r=0.380) and ability to find good health information (r=0.561). Weak correlations with the mental health composite score (r=0.116) and physical health composite score (r=0.116) were identified.

Conclusions: This study provides new information on the psychometric properties of the eHEALS for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention, suggesting a multidimensional rather than unidimensional construct. However, the study also indicated a redundancy of items, indicating the need for further validation studies.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03810612; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03810612.

Keywords: eHEALS; eHealth literacy; health literacy; percutaneous coronary intervention; psychometric properties; validation.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Gunhild Brørs, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, Håvard Dalen, Tina B Hansen, Cameron D Norman, Astrid Wahl, Tone M Norekvål, The CONCARD Investigators. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 28.07.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the inclusion process. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; TAVI: transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Electronic health literacy scale (eHEALS) 3-factor model proposed by Sudbury-Riley et al [9] with modification for items 1 and 5.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Association between electronic health literacy scale (eHEALS) scores, gender, and age. The scale was linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale. The scale was linearly converted to an 8-40 scale (scale from 8 to 40 computed as 8 + [scale from 0 to 100] × [40 – 8]/100). The eHEALS scale in the figure is: 0=8, 20=14.4, 40=20.8, 60=27.2, 80=33.6, 100=40.

References

    1. Frederix I, Caiani EG, Dendale P, Anker S, Bax J, Böhm A, Cowie M, Crawford J, de Groot N, Dilaveris P, Hansen T, Koehler F, Krstačić G, Lambrinou E, Lancellotti P, Meier P, Neubeck L, Parati G, Piotrowicz E, Tubaro M, van der Velde E. ESC e-Cardiology Working Group Position Paper: Overcoming challenges in digital health implementation in cardiovascular medicine. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul;26(11):1166–1177. doi: 10.1177/2047487319832394.
    1. Brørs G, Pettersen TR, Hansen TB, Fridlund B, Hølvold LB, Lund H, Norekvål TM. Modes of e-Health delivery in secondary prevention programmes for patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 10;19(1):364. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4106-1.
    1. Neter E, Brainin E. eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jan 27;14(1):e19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1619.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27.
    1. Chang A, Schulz PJ. The Measurements and an Elaborated Understanding of Chinese eHealth Literacy (C-eHEALS) in Chronic Patients in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jul 23;15(7):1553. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071553.
    1. Karnoe A, Kayser L. How is eHealth literacy measured and what do the measurements tell us? A systematic review. Knowl Manag E-Learn Int J. 2015;7(4):576–600. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.038.
    1. Neter E, Brainin E. Association Between Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy, and Health Outcomes Among Patients With Long-Term Conditions. Eur Psychol. 2019 Jan;24(1):68–81. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000350.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 16;8(2):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9.
    1. Sudbury-Riley L, FitzPatrick M, Schulz PJ. Exploring the Measurement Properties of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) Among Baby Boomers: A Multinational Test of Measurement Invariance. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Feb 27;19(2):e53. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5998.
    1. Mitsutake S, Shibata A, Ishii K, Okazaki K, Oka K. [Developing Japanese version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS)] Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2011 May;58(5):361–371.
    1. Neter E, Brainin E, Baron-Epel O. The dimensionality of health literacy and eHealth literacy. Eur Heal Psychologist. 2015;17(6):275–280.
    1. Bazm S, Mirzaei M, Fallahzadeh H, Bazm R. Validity and reliability of Iranian version of eHealth literacy scale. J Community Health Res. 2016;5(2):121–130.
    1. Chung S, Park BK, Nahm ES. The Korean eHealth Literacy Scale (K-eHEALS): Reliability and Validity Testing in Younger Adults Recruited Online. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 20;20(4):e138. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8759.
    1. van der Vaart R, van Deursen AJ, Drossaert CH, Taal E, van Dijk JA, van de Laar MA. Does the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? Validation of a Dutch version of the eHEALS in two adult populations. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 09;13(4):e86. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1840.
    1. Soellner R, Huber S, Reder M. The Concept of eHealth Literacy and Its Measurement. J Media Psychol. 2014 Jan;26(1):29–38. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000104.
    1. Zrubka Z, Hajdu O, Rencz F, Baji P, Gulácsi L, Péntek M. Psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the eHealth Literacy Scale. Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Jun;20(Suppl 1):57–69. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01062-1.
    1. Aponte J, Nokes KM. Validating an electronic health literacy scale in an older hispanic population. J Clin Nurs. 2017 Sep;26(17-18):2703–2711. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13763.
    1. Diviani N, Dima AL, Schulz PJ. A Psychometric Analysis of the Italian Version of the eHealth Literacy Scale Using Item Response and Classical Test Theory Methods. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 11;19(4):e114. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6749.
    1. Gazibara T, Cakic J, Cakic M, Pekmezovic T, Grgurevic A. eHealth and adolescents in Serbia: psychometric properties of eHeals questionnaire and contributing factors to better online health literacy. Health Promot Int. 2019 Aug 01;34(4):770–778. doi: 10.1093/heapro/day028.
    1. Nguyen J, Moorhouse M, Curbow B, Christie J, Walsh-Childers K, Islam S. Construct Validity of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) Among Two Adult Populations: A Rasch Analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016 May 20;2(1):e24. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.4967.
    1. Stellefson M, Paige SR, Tennant B, Alber JM, Chaney BH, Chaney D, Grossman S. Reliability and Validity of the Telephone-Based eHealth Literacy Scale Among Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 26;19(10):e362. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8481.
    1. Paige SR, Krieger JL, Stellefson M, Alber JM. eHealth literacy in chronic disease patients: An item response theory analysis of the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Feb;100(2):320–326. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.09.008.
    1. Lin C, Broström A, Griffiths MD, Pakpour AH. Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) Among Elder Iranians With Heart Failure. Eval Health Prof. 2019 Feb 11;:163278719827997. doi: 10.1177/0163278719827997.
    1. Hyde LL, Boyes AW, Evans T, Mackenzie LJ, Sanson-Fisher R. Three-Factor Structure of the eHealth Literacy Scale Among Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography Outpatients: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. JMIR Hum Factors. 2018 Feb 19;5(1):e6. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.9039.
    1. Paramio Pérez G, Almagro BJ, Hernando Gómez Á, Aguaded Gómez JI. [Validation of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) in Spanish University Students] Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2015;89(3):329–338. doi: 10.4321/S1135-57272015000300010.
    1. Richtering SS, Hyun K, Neubeck L, Coorey G, Chalmers J, Usherwood T, Peiris D, Chow CK, Redfern J. eHealth Literacy: Predictors in a Population With Moderate-to-High Cardiovascular Risk. JMIR Hum Factors. 2017 Jan 27;4(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.6217.
    1. De Vet HCW, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D. Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 1–328.
    1. Norekvål TM, Allore HG, Bendz B, Bjorvatn C, Borregaard B, Brørs G, Deaton C, Fålun N, Hadjistavropoulos H, Hansen TB, Igland S, Larsen AI, Palm P, Pettersen TR, Rasmussen TB, Schjøtt J, Søgaard R, Valaker I, Zwisler AD, Rotevatn S, CONCARD Investigators Rethinking rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention: a protocol of a multicentre cohort study on continuity of care, health literacy, adherence and costs at all care levels (the CONCARD) BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 12;10(2):e031995. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031995.
    1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186–3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
    1. Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) BMC Public Health. 2013 Jul 16;13:658. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-658.
    1. Elsworth GR, Beauchamp A, Osborne RH. Measuring health literacy in community agencies: a Bayesian study of the factor structure and measurement invariance of the health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Sep 22;16(1):508. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1754-2.
    1. Urstad K, Andenæs R, Wahl AK, Kvarme LG, Helseth S, Moum TA. he Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ): Initial validity testing in a Norwegian sample. Health Lit Res Pract. 2020;[Accepted August 26, 2019]:(forthcoming). [Accepted August 26, 2019]
    1. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220–233. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
    1. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1171–1178. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00109-7.
    1. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research 2nd edition. New York: Guildford Press; 2006.
    1. DeCastellarnau A. A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1523–1559. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir