Cited by 63Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityDigital literacy in educationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

The mediating effects of digital literacy and self-efficacy on the relationship between learning attitudes and Ehealth literacy in nursing students: a cross-sectional study

Jeon, Jaehee, Kim, Sisook·2022·Nurse Education Today

Abstract

Background eHealth literacy (eHL) is considered an important competency among healthcare providers in healthcare systems, especially following the introduction of information and communication technologies. Objectives This study aimed to identify the relationship and direction of factors affecting nursing students' eHL in an online learning environment. Design A cross-sectional study. Settings Three nursing colleges located in Gyeonggi-do and Gangwon-do in Korea. Participants Participants were 259 nursing students aged 18-29 years who lived in the Seoul metropolitan area. Methods Self-reported data on variables including attitudes toward online learning, digital literacy, self-efficacy, and eHL, were collected and analyzed using an independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance. The mediating effects were verified through the bootstrapping method using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. Results The results indicated that although attitudes toward online learning affected digital literacy, they did not directly influence eHL. Additionally, digital literacy and self-efficacy were also found to be associated with eHL and mediate the relationship between online learning attitudes and eHL. Conclusions As online nursing education rapidly becomes commonplace due to the COVID-19 pandemic, attitudes toward online learning, digital literacy, and self-efficacy must be improved to enhance eHL.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105378

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeon, J., & Kim, S.
Affiliations
  • Gangneung–Wonju National University (KR)
  • Namseoul University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Sisook
Venue
Nurse Education Today
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
113
Pages
105378
ISSN
0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4223971940
Cited by
63
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 1
FWCI
11.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education Today (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Namseoul University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
digital health literacy, digital literacy, self-efficacy, attitudes toward e-learning, nursing students, online nursing education, mediating effect, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Nursing, Telemedicine, Self Efficacy, Health Literacy, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review