Development of the Digital Health Literacy Instrument: Measuring a Broad Spectrum of Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Skills

Rosalie van der Vaart, Constance Drossaert, Rosalie van der Vaart, Constance Drossaert

Abstract

Background: With the digitization of health care and the wide availability of Web-based applications, a broad set of skills is essential to properly use such facilities; these skills are called digital health literacy or eHealth literacy. Current instruments to measure digital health literacy focus only on information gathering (Health 1.0 skills) and do not pay attention to interactivity on the Web (Health 2.0). To measure the complete spectrum of Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 skills, including actual competencies, we developed a new instrument. The Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI) measures operational skills, navigation skills, information searching, evaluating reliability, determining relevance, adding self-generated content, and protecting privacy.

Objective: Our objective was to study the distributional properties, reliability, content validity, and construct validity of the DHLI's self-report scale (21 items) and to explore the feasibility of an additional set of performance-based items (7 items).

Methods: We used a paper-and-pencil survey among a sample of the general Dutch population, stratified by age, sex, and educational level (T1; N=200). The survey consisted of the DHLI, sociodemographics, Internet use, health status, health literacy and the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). After 2 weeks, we asked participants to complete the DHLI again (T2; n=67). Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation analysis between T1 and T2 were used to investigate reliability. Principal component analysis was performed to determine content validity. Correlation analyses were used to determine the construct validity.

Results: Respondents (107 female and 93 male) ranged in age from 18 to 84 years (mean 46.4, SD 19.0); 23.0% (46/200) had a lower educational level. Internal consistencies of the total scale (alpha=.87) and the subscales (alpha range .70-.89) were satisfactory, except for protecting privacy (alpha=.57). Distributional properties showed an approximately normal distribution. Test-retest analysis was satisfactory overall (total scale intraclass correlation coefficient=.77; subscale intraclass correlation coefficient range .49-.81). The performance-based items did not together form a single construct (alpha=.47) and should be interpreted individually. Results showed that more complex skills were reflected in a lower number of correct responses. Principal component analysis confirmed the theoretical structure of the self-report scale (76% explained variance). Correlations were as expected, showing significant relations with age (ρ=-.41, P<.001), education (ρ=.14, P=.047), Internet use (ρ=.39, P<.001), health-related Internet use (ρ=.27, P<.001), health status (ρ range .17-.27, P<.001), health literacy (ρ=.31, P<.001), and the eHEALS (ρ=.51, P<.001).

Conclusions: This instrument can be accepted as a new self-report measure to assess digital health literacy, using multiple subscales. Its performance-based items provide an indication of actual skills but should be studied and adapted further. Future research should examine the acceptability of this instrument in other languages and among different populations.

Keywords: digital health literacy skills; eHealth literacy; measurement; performance-based instrument; validity.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Rosalie van der Vaart, Constance Drossaert. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 24.01.2017.

References

    1. TNS Political and Social . Flash Eurobarometer 404 European Citizens' Digital Health Literacy. Brussels, Belgium: European Union; 2014.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun;8(2):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9.
    1. Hsu W, Chiang C, Yang S. The effect of individual factors on health behaviors among college students: the mediating effects of eHealth literacy. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e287. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3542.
    1. Neter E, Brainin E. eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jan;14(1):e19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1619.
    1. Chang BL, Bakken S, Brown SS, Houston TK, Kreps GL, Kukafka R, Safran C, Stavri PZ. Bridging the digital divide: reaching vulnerable populations. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(6):448–57. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1535.
    1. Chan CV, Kaufman DR. A framework for characterizing eHealth literacy demands and barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov;13(4):e94. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1750.
    1. Xie B. Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov;13(4):e90. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1880.
    1. Car J, Lang B, Colledge A, Ung C, Majeed A. Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(6):CD007092. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007092.pub2.
    1. Chung S, Nahm E. Testing reliability and validity of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) for older adults recruited online. Comput Inform Nurs. 2015 Apr;33(4):150–6. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000146.
    1. Chesser A, Burke A, Reyes J, Rohrberg T. Navigating the digital divide: a systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States. Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(1):1–19. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2014.948171.
    1. Botts N, Horan T. Bridging care communication health management within diverse underserved populations. Americas Conference on Information Systems; August 14-17, 2008; Toronto, ON, Canada. 2008. Jan 01,
    1. Van De Belt T, Engelen LG, Berben SA, Schoonhoven L. Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e18. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1350.
    1. Norgaard O, Furstrand D, Klokker L, Karnoe A, Batterham R, Kayser L, Osborne R. The e-health literacy framework: a conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems. Knowledge Manage E-Learning. 2015;7(4):522–40.
    1. van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA. Internet skills performance tests: are people ready for eHealth? J Med Internet Res. 2011 Apr;13(2):e35. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1581.
    1. Norman C. eHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec;13(4):e125. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2035.
    1. van der Vaart R, Drossaert CH, de Heus HM, Taal E, van de Laar MA. Measuring actual eHealth literacy among patients with rheumatic diseases: a qualitative analysis of problems encountered using Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 applications. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb;15(2):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2428.
    1. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27.
    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;13(4):e86. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1840.
    1. Soellner R, Huber S, Reder M. The concept of eHealth literacy and its measurement: German translation of the eHEALS. J Media Psychol. 2014 Jan;26(1):29–38. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000104.
    1. Neter E, Brainin E, Baron-Epel O. The dimensionality of health literacy and eHealth literacy. Eur Health Psychol. 2015;17(6):275–80.
    1. Merritt K, Smith KD, Di Renzo JC. An investigation of self-reported computer literacy: is it reliable? Issues Inf Syst. 2005;6(1):289–95.
    1. van Vliet PJ, Kletke MG, Chakraborty G. The measurement of computer literacy: a comparison of self-appraisal and objective tests. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 1994 May;40(5):835–57. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1040.
    1. Diviani N, van den Putte B, Giani S, van Weert JC. Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e112. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4018.
    1. Paasche-Orlow MK, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nielsen-Bohlman LT, Rudd RR. The prevalence of limited health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Feb;20(2):175–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40245.x.
    1. Bodie GD, Dutta MJ. Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health disparities, and the digital divide. Health Mark Q. 2008 Jul;25(1-2):175–203. doi: 10.1080/07359680802126301.
    1. Martin LT, Ruder T, Escarce JJ, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Sherman D, Elliott M, Bird CE, Fremont A, Gasper C, Culbert A, Lurie N. Developing predictive models of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Nov;24(11):1211–6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1105-7.
    1. van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA, Peters O. Rethinking Internet skills: the contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills. Poetics. 2011 Apr;39(2):125–44. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2011.02.001.
    1. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, Castro KM, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, Mockbee J, Hale FA. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):514–22. doi: 10.1370/afm.405.
    1. World Health Organization . Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2016. [2016-09-26].
    1. Hak T, Van der Veer K, Jansen H. The Three-Step Test-Interview (TSTI): an observation-based method for pretesting self-completion questionnaires. Survey Research Methods. 2008;2(3):143–50.
    1. Ericsson K, Simon H. Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev. 1980;87(3):215–51.
    1. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-item health survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993 Oct;2(3):217–27. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020305.
    1. Hays RD, Morales LS. The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):350–7.
    1. van der Zee KI, Sanderman R. Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36, een handleiding. Groningen, Netherlands: UMCG/Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Research Institute SHARE; 2012. [2016-08-12]. .
    1. Fransen MP, Van Schaik TM, Twickler TB, Essink-Bot ML. Applicability of internationally available health literacy measures in the Netherlands. J Health Commun. 2011;16 Suppl 3:134–49. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.604383.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951 Sep;16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. Field AP. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (And Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2009.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. Nunnaly J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1994.
    1. Seçkin G, Yeatts D, Hughes S, Hudson C, Bell V. Being an informed consumer of health information and assessment of electronic health literacy in a national sample of Internet users: validity and reliability of the e-HLS Instrument. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 11;18(7):e161. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5496.
    1. Choi NG, Dinitto DM. The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/Internet use. J Med Internet Res. 2013 May;15(5):e93. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2645.
    1. Gell NM, Rosenberg DE, Demiris G, LaCroix AZ, Patel KV. Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. Gerontologist. 2015 Jun;55(3):412–21. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt166.
    1. Central Bureau for Statistics [StatLine: ICT use by people according to person characteristics, 2005-2013] 2016. May 27, [2016-05-27]. .

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться