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 Dec 19;20(12):e10273.
doi: 10.2196/10273.

Health Literacy in Web-Based Health Information Environments: Systematic Review of Concepts, Definitions, and Operationalization for Measurement

Affiliations

Health Literacy in Web-Based Health Information Environments: Systematic Review of Concepts, Definitions, and Operationalization for Measurement

Anna-Maija Huhta et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Health literacy research seems to lack a consensus on what aspects to include into literacy in the context of health and on how to operationalize these concepts for measurement purposes. In addition to health literacy, several other concepts, such as electronic health (eHealth) literacy and mental health literacy, have been developed across disciplines. This study examines how these different concepts are used when studying health-related competencies in Web contexts.

Objective: This study systematically reviews health literacy concepts and definitions and their operationalization in studies focused on Web-based health information environments.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2016 in 6 electronic databases with a limitation to articles in English published between January 2011 and April 2016. Altogether, 1289 unique records were identified and screened according to the predefined inclusion criteria: (1) original, peer-reviewed research articles written in English; (2) the topic of the article concerned literacy in the context of health; (3) informants of the study were lay people, not health professionals or students of the field; and (4) the focus of the study was placed on an Web-based information environment. In total, 180 full texts were screened, of which 68 were included in the review. The studies were analyzed with an emphasis on the used health literacy concepts and measures.

Results: On the basis of the included studies, several concepts are in use when studying health-related literacy in Web environments, eHealth literacy and health literacy being the most common ones. The reviewed studies represent a variety of disciplines, but mostly medical sciences. Typically, quantitative research methods are used. On the basis of the definitions for health literacy, 3 thematic categories were identified: general and skill-based, multidimensional, and domain-specific health literacy. Most studies adopted a domain-specific concept, followed by the ones that used a general and skill-based concept. Multidimensional concepts occurred least frequently. The general health literacy concepts were usually operationalized with reading comprehension measures, the domain-specific concepts with self-efficacy measures, and multidimensional concepts with several types of measures. However, inconsistencies in operationalization were identified.

Conclusions: The results show that in studies conducted in Web-based information environments, several different health literacy concepts are in use, and there is no clear consensus on the definitions for these concepts. Future studies should place emphasis on the conceptual development of health literacy in Web contexts to gain better results on operationalization for measurement. Researchers are encouraged to provide clear operational definitions for the concepts they use to ensure transparency in reporting.

Keywords: consumer health information; health literacy; internet; review, systematic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the study selection process. LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts; LISTA: Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts; ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; ERIC: Education Resources Information Center; CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bawden D, Robinson L. The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. J Inf Sci. 2009 Apr;35(2):180–191. doi: 10.1177/0165551508095781. - DOI
    1. Koltay T. The bright side of information: ways of mitigating information overload. J Doc. 2017 Jul 10;73(4):767–775. doi: 10.1108/JD-09-2016-0107. - DOI
    1. Batterham RW, Beauchamp A, Osborne RH. Health Literacy. In: Quah SR, editor. International Encyclopedia Of Public Health, Second Edition. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier; 2017. pp. 428–437.
    1. World Health Organization. [2018-02-06]. Track 2: Health literacy and health behavior http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/7gchp/track2/en/
    1. Guzys D, Kenny A, Dickson-Swift V, Threlkeld G. A critical review of population health literacy assessment. BMC Public Health. 2015 Mar 04;15:215. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1551-6. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-15... 10.1186/s12889-015-1551-6 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types