Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Oct 2;20(10):e10175.
doi: 10.2196/10175.

Proposing a Transactional Model of eHealth Literacy: Concept Analysis

Affiliations

Proposing a Transactional Model of eHealth Literacy: Concept Analysis

Samantha R Paige et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Electronic health (eHealth) literacy was conceptualized in 2006 as the ability of internet users to locate, evaluate, and act upon web-based health information. Now, advances in eHealth technology have cultivated transactional opportunities for patients to access, share, and monitor health information. However, empirical evidence shows that existing models and measures of eHealth literacy have limited theoretical underpinnings that reflect the transactional capabilities of eHealth. This paper describes a conceptual model based on the Transactional Model of Communication (TMC), in which eHealth literacy is described as an intrapersonal skillset hypothesized as being dynamic; reciprocal; and shaped by social, relational, and cultural contexts.

Objective: The objective of our study was to systematically examine eHealth literacy definitions, models, and measures to propose a refined conceptual and operational definition based on the TMC.

Methods: Walker and Avant's concept analysis method was used to guide the systematic review of eHealth literacy definitions (n=10), rating scales (n=6), models (n=4), and peer-reviewed model applications (n=16). Subsequent cluster analyses showed salient themes across definitions. Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences reflected in models and measures were extracted and deductively analyzed based on codes consistent with the TMC.

Results: Systematic review evidence revealed incongruity between operational eHealth literacy included in definitions compared with literacies included within models and measures. Theoretical underpinnings of eHealth literacy also remain dismal. Despite the transactional capabilities of eHealth, the role of "communication" in eHealth literacy remains underdeveloped and does not account for physical and cognitive processing abilities necessary for multiway transactions.

Conclusions: The Transactional Model of eHealth Literacy and a corresponding definition are proposed. In this novel model, eHealth literacy comprises a hierarchical intrapersonal skillset that mediates the reciprocal effect of contextual factors (ie, user oriented and task oriented) on patient engagement in health care. More specifically, the intrapersonal skillset counteracts the negative effect of "noise" (or impediments) produced by social and relational contexts. Cutting across health and technology literacies, the intrapersonal skillset of eHealth literacy is operationalized through four literacies that correspond with discrete operative skills: (1) functional (ie, locate and understand); (2) communicative (ie, exchange); (3) critical (ie, evaluate); and (4) translational (ie, apply).

Keywords: Transactional Model of Communication; eHealth literacy; interpersonal communication; mobile phone; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Literature extraction procedures. The asterisk indicates that Phase 3 N values exceed the total sample of 27 as some articles included both definitions and models or measures.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Transactional Model of eHealth Literacy.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Barello S, Triberti S, Graffigna G, Libreri C, Serino S, Hibbard J, Riva G. eHealth for Patient Engagement: A Systematic Review. Front Psychol. 2015;6:2013. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02013. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02013. - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shaw T, McGregor D, Brunner M, Keep M, Janssen A, Barnet S. What is eHealth (6)? Development of a Conceptual Model for eHealth: Qualitative Study with Key Informants. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 24;19(10):e324. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8106. http://www.jmir.org/2017/10/e324/ v19i10e324 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barnlund D. Foundations of Communication Theory. Communication: The context of change. In Sereno KK, Mortensen CD. Foundations of communication theory, pp. 83-102. Harper & Row; New York, USA; 1970.
    1. Walther JB, Jang J. Communication Processes in Participatory Websites. J Comput-Mediat Comm. 2012 Oct 10;18(1):2–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x. - DOI
    1. Knapp M, Daly J. 4th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication.

Publication types