Cited by 250Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy

Jacobs, Robin J, Lou, Jennie Q, Ownby, Raymond L, Caballero, Joshua·2016·Health Informatics Journal

Abstract

Implementation of eHealth is now considered an effective way to address concerns about the health status of health care consumers. The purpose of this study was to review empirically based eHealth intervention strategies designed to improve health literacy among consumers in a variety of settings. A computerized search of 16 databases of abstracts (e.g. Biomedical Reference Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, Health Technology Assessments, MEDLINE) were explored in a systematic fashion to assess the presence of eHealth applications targeting health literacy. Compared to control interventions, the interventions using technology reported significant outcomes or showed promise for future positive outcomes regarding health literacy in a variety of settings, for different diseases, and with diverse samples. This review has indicated that it is feasible to deliver eHealth interventions specifically designed to improve health literacy skills for people with different health conditions, risk factors, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1460458214534092

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • These approaches have shown promise for improving knowledge and self-management, but the evidence is inconclusive, few studies have been theory-based, and it remains unclear whether different intervention elements engage and optimize outcomes for people at varying levels of health literacy.

    “These approaches have shown promise for improving knowledge and selfmanagement, but the evidence is inconclusive, few studies have been theory-based, and it remains unclear whether different intervention elements engage and optimize outcomes for people at varying levels of health literacy.48”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobs, R. J., Lou, J. Q., Ownby, R. L., & Caballero, J.
Affiliations
Nova Southeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Jacobs, Robin J
Venue
Health Informatics Journal
Published
2014-06-10
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
81-98
ISSN
  • 1355-4743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4582
  • 1741-2811
OpenAlex
W2031942492
Cited by
249
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Informatics Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) (submittedVersion)
  • AMIA
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
digital health interventions, health literacy, health information technology, patient education, health care consumers
MeSH terms
Computer Literacy, Health Education, Humans, Databases, Factual, Telemedicine, Internet, Health Literacy

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