eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale

Cameron D Norman, Harvey A Skinner, Cameron D Norman, Harvey A Skinner

Abstract

Background: Electronic health resources are helpful only when people are able to use them, yet there remain few tools available to assess consumers' capacity for engaging in eHealth. Over 40% of US and Canadian adults have low basic literacy levels, suggesting that eHealth resources are likely to be inaccessible to large segments of the population. Using information technology for health requires eHealth literacy-the ability to read, use computers, search for information, understand health information, and put it into context. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was designed (1) to assess consumers' perceived skills at using information technology for health and (2) to aid in determining the fit between eHealth programs and consumers.

Objectives: The eHEALS is an 8-item measure of eHealth literacy developed to measure consumers' combined knowledge, comfort, and perceived skills at finding, evaluating, and applying electronic health information to health problems. The objective of the study was to psychometrically evaluate the properties of the eHEALS within a population context. A youth population was chosen as the focus for the initial development primarily because they have high levels of eHealth use and familiarity with information technology tools.

Methods: Data were collected at baseline, post-intervention, and 3- and 6-month follow-up using control group data as part of a single session, randomized intervention trial evaluating Web-based eHealth programs. Scale reliability was tested using item analysis for internal consistency (coefficient alpha) and test-retest reliability estimates. Principal components factor analysis was used to determine the theoretical fit of the measures with the data.

Results: A total of 664 participants (370 boys; 294 girls) aged 13 to 21 (mean = 14.95; SD = 1.24) completed the eHEALS at four time points over 6 months. Item analysis was performed on the 8-item scale at baseline, producing a tight fitting scale with alpha = .88. Item-scale correlations ranged from r = .51 to .76. Test-retest reliability showed modest stability over time from baseline to 6-month follow-up (r = .68 to .40). Principal components analysis produced a single factor solution (56% of variance). Factor loadings ranged from .60 to .84 among the 8 items.

Conclusions: The eHEALS reliably and consistently captures the eHealth literacy concept in repeated administrations, showing promise as tool for assessing consumer comfort and skill in using information technology for health. Within a clinical environment, the eHEALS has the potential to serve as a means of identifying those who may or may not benefit from referrals to an eHealth intervention or resource. Further research needs to examine the applicability of the eHEALS to other populations and settings while exploring the relationship between eHealth literacy and health care outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References

    1. National Center for Education Statistics, authors. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). a first look at the literacy of America's adults in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2005. [2006 Nov 11]. .
    1. Statistics Canada, authors. Building on our competencies: Canadian results of the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, 2003. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry; 2005. [2006 Nov 11]. .
    1. Norman Cameron D, Skinner Harvey A. 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. v8i2e9
    1. Veenhof B, Clermont Y, Sciadas G. Literacy and digital technologies: linkages and outcomes. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2005. [2006 Nov 11]. .
    1. Rootman Irving. Literacy and health in Canada: is it really a problem? Can J Public Health. 2003;94(6):405–7, 412.
    1. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(3):259–267. doi: 10.1093/heapro/15.3.259.
    1. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA. 1999 Feb 10;281(6):552–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.6.545. jcn80003
    1. Institute of Medicine, authors. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. [2006 Nov 11]. .
    1. Madden M, Fox S. Finding answers online in sickness and in health. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2006. May 02, [2006 Nov 11]. .
    1. Norman CD, Chirrey S, Skinner H. Consumer perspectives on e-Health. In: Skinner H. Promoting health through organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings; 2002. pp. 315–334.
    1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997.
    1. Environics Research Group, authors. Young Canadians in a wired world: what are youth doing online, and what do their parents need to know? Toronto, ON: Environics Research Group; 2001. [2006 Nov 11]. Report No. pn4737
    1. Skinner Harvey, Biscope Sherry, Poland Blake. Quality of internet access: barrier behind internet use statistics. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Sep;57(5):875–80. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00455-0.S0277953602004550
    1. Skinner Harvey, Biscope Sherry, Poland Blake, Goldberg Eudice. How adolescents use technology for health information: implications for health professionals from focus group studies. J Med Internet Res. 2003 Dec 18;5(4):e32. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5.4.e32.
    1. Gray Nicola J, Klein Jonathan D, Noyce Peter R, Sesselberg Tracy S, Cantrill Judith A. The Internet: a window on adolescent health literacy. J Adolesc Health. 2005 Sep;37(3):243. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.08.023.S1054-139X(05)00115-1
    1. Eysenbach Gunther. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med. 2002 Dec 15;113(9):763–5. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01473-0.S0002934302014730
    1. Eysenbach G. Rating information on the internet can empower users to make informed decisions. BMJ. 1999 Aug 7;319(7206):385–6.
    1. Eysenbach G, Jadad AR. Consumer health informatics in the Internet age. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001. pp. 289–307.
    1. TeenNet Research Program, authors. Home page. [2006 July 1].
    1. Smoking Zine Program, authors. Home page. [2006 July 10].
    1. SPSS Base [computer software], authors Version 11.5. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc; 2003.
    1. Thurstone LL. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1949.
    1. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992.
    1. Discern Home page. [2006 Nov 11].
    1. National Literacy and Health Program, authors. Home page. [2006 Nov 11].
    1. Learners Advisory Network of the Movement for Canadian Literacy, authors. Home page. [2006 Nov 11]. .

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj