The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study
Open accessAbstract
Background: The rapid development of digital health has reduced the time and cost of medical treatment, bringing efficient and economical benefits. However, older adults all over the world are deficient in digital health knowledge and skills to varying degrees. This study intends to investigate the current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China, so as to provide theoretical reference for global digital health researches and the construction of gerontological digital health service models. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021 in Chongqing, China. 572 community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) were surveyed by stratified sampling. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, Internet usage, attitude towards Internet health information and digital health literacy were collected. Wherein, the digital health literacy assessment adopted the Digital Health Literacy Assessment Scale for community-dwelling older adults, which was developed by the research group, proven to be with good internal consistency (0.941), split-half reliability (0.889), test–retest reliability (0.941), content validity (0.967), criterion validity (0.938) and construct validity. The influencing factors were explored by univariate analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. Results: The average score of digital health literacy was 37.10 (SD 18.65). Univariate analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in the comparison of digital health literacy according to 16 variables, such as different age and education levels. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy, while age and perceived risk were negatively correlated with digital health literacy. Conclusion: The overall digital health literacy of community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China is relatively low. In the future, health professionals should fully consider the diverse influencing factors of digital health literacy, assess individual differences and provide targeted intervention programs. Meanwhile, global public health authorities should integrate health resources effectively, and seek health service models for older adults in line with the development of the digital age to narrow the digital divide.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This cross-sectional study assessed digital health literacy among 572 community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China and found an overall low level, with a mean score of 37.10 (SD 18.65) on a 15–75 scale. Multiple factors, including education, Internet use, family guidance, and attitudes toward Internet health information, were associated with digital health literacy.
Key findings
- The mean digital health literacy score was 37.10 (SD 18.65), ranging from 15 to 74; the mean item score was 2.47 (SD 1.68), indicating a relatively low perceived level. Dimension scores were highest for acquisition and evaluation ability (2.89, SD 1.71), followed by interaction ability (2.18, SD 1.56) and application ability (1.51, SD 1.03).
- Univariate analysis found statistically significant differences in digital health literacy for 16 variables, including age, education level, living arrangement, marital status, monthly household income per capita, self-rated health status, health concerns, Internet use duration/frequency/time, family guidance, and perceived usefulness, ease of use, risk, and reliability of Internet health information (P < 0.01).
- Multiple linear regression showed 13 factors entered the equation, jointly accounting for 83.5% of the total variation (adjusted R² = 0.835; F = 222.510, P < 0.001). Education level, marital status, self-rated health status, health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy; age and perceived risk were negatively correlated.
- More than two-thirds of participants used the Internet (389/572, 68.01%), but 42.48% spent less than 1 h online per day; 51.75% never/seldom actively asked family for help acquiring Internet health information, while 48.43% never/seldom received guidance passively from family members.
Methods
- A cross-sectional survey was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021 in the main urban areas of Chongqing, China, using stratified sampling. Participants were 572 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥65 years; 600 questionnaires were distributed, 589 collected, and 572 valid questionnaires obtained (effective recovery rate 95.33%).
- Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, Internet usage, attitude toward Internet health information, and digital health literacy. Digital health literacy was measured with the Digital Health Literacy Assessment Scale for community-dwelling older adults, a 15-item, 3-dimension scale with a total score range of 15–75; Cronbach’s alpha in this study was 0.959.
- Analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests and ANOVA for univariate comparisons, and multiple linear stepwise regression to identify influencing factors; statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Limitations
- The paper states that digital health literacy was assessed with a self-assessment scale, which inevitably led to self-reported bias and could not fully reflect participants’ actual digital health literacy operation ability; future research should consider additional operational experiments.
- The paper states that the study only investigated community-dwelling older adults in the main urban areas of Chongqing, China, and that results cannot represent the overall level of community-dwelling older adults in China; additional large-scale studies in other regions are necessary.
- Evident from the design: the cross-sectional design cannot establish causal direction among the identified associations, though the paper does not explicitly list this as a limitation.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 18 Not checked yet · 7 Own method · 7 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score of items in each dimension from high to low were as follows: digital health information acquisition and evaluation ability 2.89 (SD 1.71), digital health information interaction ability 2.18 (SD 1.56), digital health information application ability 1.51 (SD 1.03).”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Digital health literacy among respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score of each item was 2.47 (SD 1.68), ranging from 1 to 5.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Digital health literacy among respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score of items in each dimension from high to low were as follows: digital health information acquisition and evaluation ability 2.89 (SD 1.71), digital health information interaction ability 2.18 (SD 1.56), digital health information application ability 1.51 (SD 1.03).”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Digital health literacy among respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Univariate analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in the comparison of digital health literacy according to 16 variables, such as different age and education levels.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“age and perceived risk were negatively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This study showed that most older adults had a low sense of media participation, and they were accustomed to acting as receivers rather than communicators, which was consistent with previous research results [19, 51].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] 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;15(5):e93. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2645. source
- Not checked yetcites [51] Wang W, Zhuang X, Shao P. Exploring health information sharing behavior of Chinese elderly adults on WeChat. Healthcare. 2020;8(3):207. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030207. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among them, education level, marital status, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of Internet usage, frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived reliability were positively correlated with digital health literacy”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Multiple linear regression analysis of digital health literacy of respondents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, the digital health application ability of the older adults was weak, most of whom lacked the ability to turn the Internet health knowledge into action and apply it to health self-management.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The younger, better educated and married older adults had higher digital health literacy, which was consistent with previous research results [14, 26].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Li S, Cui G, Yin Y, Wang S, Liu X, Chen L. Health-promoting behaviors mediate the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related quality of life among Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(8):2235–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02797-2. source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Tennant B, Stellefson M, Dodd V, Chaney B, Chaney D, Paige S, Alber J. EHealth literacy and web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e70. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3992. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while age and perceived risk were negatively correlated with digital health literacy.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Multiple linear regression analysis of digital health literacy of respondents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score of digital health literacy of participants was 37.10 (SD 18.65), ranging from 15 to 74.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The average score of digital health literacy was 37.10 (SD 18.65).”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Digital health literacy among respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results showed that the regression model was significant (F = 222.510, P < 0.001), and 13 factors entered the regression equation, which could jointly account for 83.5% of the total variation, as shown in Table 3.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Multiple linear regression analysis of digital health literacy of respondents
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respondents with different age, education level, residential status, marital status, monthly household income per capita, self-rated health status, degree of health concerns, duration of Internet usage, frequency of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, frequency of asking for help actively and receiving guidance passively from family members on”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Univariate analysis of digital health literacy of respondents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of Internet usage factors, duration of Internet usage, frequency of Internet usage, time spent using the Internet per day, and the frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members were the influencing factors of the digital health literacy of older adults.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, 48.42% of older adults lived with their spouses and children/grandchildren or live with children/grandchildren only, having the advantage of family education.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was worth noting that frequency of asking for help actively from family members did not enter the regression equation, while the frequency of receiving guidance passively from family members entered the final regression equation.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the digital health literacy assessment adopted the Digital Health Literacy Assessment Scale for community-dwelling older adults, which was developed by the research group, proven to be with good internal consistency (0.941), split-half reliability (0.889), test–retest reliability (0.941), content validity (0.967), criterion validity (0.938) and construct validity.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Abstract > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The number of Internet users in China aged 60 and over has tripled in the past five years, making them the fastest growing group [48, 49].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). The 47th China statistical report on internet development. 2021. http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/hlwtjbg/202102/P020210203334633480104.pdf. Accessed 27 Jul 2021.
- Not checked yetcites [49] China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). The 37th China statistical report on internet development. 2016. http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/hlwtjbg/201601/P020160122444930951954.pdf. Accessed 27 Jul 2021.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The item-level CVIs of all questions were rated 1.000, and the scale-level CVI thus computed was also 1.000.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Methods > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this process, the ability to acquire and evaluate Internet health information has been gradually established [50].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Yang E, Chang SJ, Ryu H, Kim HJ, Jang SJ. Comparing factors associated with eHealth literacy between young and older adults. J Gerontol Nurs. 2020;46(8):46–56. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20200707-02. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“At the same time, the existing researches on influencing factors of digital health literacy among older adults mainly focus on objective factors such as sociodemographic characteristics and digital factors [13, 33, 34]. Less attention is paid to subjective factors such as attitude towards Internet health information and social environment factors such as family support, which is lack of systematic”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Hoogland AI, Mansfield J, Lafranchise EA, Bulls HW, Johnstone PA, Jim HSL. EHealth literacy in older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(6):1020–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2019.12.015. source
- Not checked yetcites [33] Lwin MO, Panchapakesan C, Sheldenkar A, Calvert GA, Lim LKS, Lu J. Determinants of eHealth literacy among adults in China. J Health Commun. 2020;25(5):385–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1776422. source
- Not checked yetcites [34] Cherid C, Baghdadli A, Wall M, Mayo NE, Berry G, Harvey EJ, Albers A, Bergeron SG, Morin SN. Current level of technology use, health and eHealth literacy in older Canadians with a recent fracture—a survey in orthopedic clinics. Osteoporosis Int. 2020;31(7):1333–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05359-3. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our estimated minimum sample size was 418.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Methods > Participants and procedure
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The higher digital health literacy of the married older adults may be due to the fact that older adults with good family functions are more likely to get family emotional support, thus having more family involvement and guidance when using digital health services [52, 53].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] Terp R, Kayser L, Lindhardt T. Older patients’ competence, preferences, and attitudes toward digital technology use: explorative study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2021;8(2):e27005. https://doi.org/10.2196/27005. source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Portz JD, Fruhauf C, Bull S, Boxer RS, Bekelman DB, Casillas A, Gleason K, Bayliss EA. “Call a teenager… that’s what I do!” - grandchildren help older adults use new technologies: qualitative study. JMIR aging. 2019;2(1):e13713. https://doi.org/10.2196/13713. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Under the background of Chinese social culture, older adults often live with their children and grandchildren.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One possible reason is that China gained full access to the Internet in 1994, later than many developed countries.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: China gained full access to the Internet in 1994, later than many developed countries.
In the paper
“Digital Health Literacy 2.0 emphasizes that users should not only be passive receivers, but also have the ability to actively participate in communication by interacting and sharing health-related information [21].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Paige SR, Stellefson M, Krieger JL, Anderson-Lewis C, Cheong J, Stopka C. Proposing a transactional model of eHealth literacy: concept analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(10):e10175. https://doi.org/10.2196/10175. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, it still has some problems, such as unclear score boundary [28], inability to accurately judge the actual level of users' digital health literacy [29], and lack of evaluation of critical and interactive health literacy [30, 31].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Quinn S, Bond R, Nugent C. Quantifying health literacy and eHealth literacy using existing instruments and browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking behavior. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;69:256–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.032. source
- Not checked yetcites [29] 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. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1840. source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Norman C. EHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e125. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2035. source
- Not checked yetcites [31] van der Vaart R, Drossaert C. Development of the digital health literacy instrument: measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e27. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6709. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous research results showed that there was a gap between the digital health literacy level of Chinese older adults and that of developed countries [14, 27].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Li S, Cui G, Yin Y, Wang S, Liu X, Chen L. Health-promoting behaviors mediate the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related quality of life among Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(8):2235–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02797-2. source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Li S, Yin Y, Cui G, Xu H. The associations among health-promoting lifestyle, eHealth literacy, and cognitive health in older Chinese adults: a cross-sectional study. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2020;17(7):2263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072263. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scale has been proved to have good discrimination, reliability, validity and practicability”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The application ability of digital health literacy is the highest cognitive level of digital health literacy, which is cultivated by acquiring information from all lower-level digital health literacy dimensions (namely, acquisition and evaluation ability and interaction ability) [21].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Paige SR, Stellefson M, Krieger JL, Anderson-Lewis C, Cheong J, Stopka C. Proposing a transactional model of eHealth literacy: concept analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(10):e10175. https://doi.org/10.2196/10175. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Older adults with high perceived usefulness, ease of use, reliability and low perceived risk of Internet health information may have more active attitude towards digital health services usage, which directly affects their behavior intention and leads to more positive usage behaviors, thus having higher digital health literacy.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was suggested that older adults were more inclined to learn passively than to seek guidance actively from their family members for obtaining Internet health information, and family members' teaching of acquiring Internet health information skills can improve the digital health knowledge and skills more effectively.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Under the background of Chinese social culture, older adults often live with their children and grandchildren.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the digital health literacy assessment used the self-assessment scale, which inevitably led to self-reported bias and could not fully reflect the actual digital health literacy operation ability of the participants.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion > Limitations and future research
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As one of the six core literacy of digital health literacy, computer literacy is the foundation of digital health literacy cultivation [20].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Norman CD, Skinner HA. EHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(2):e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The study by Yang et al. also showed that the attitude towards Internet health information was the most important predictor of digital health literacy [50].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Yang E, Chang SJ, Ryu H, Kim HJ, Jang SJ. Comparing factors associated with eHealth literacy between young and older adults. J Gerontol Nurs. 2020;46(8):46–56. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20200707-02. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Older adults who perceive themselves to be good health and pay more attention to health have stronger self-care awareness and health information needs, and they are more likely to actively seek online health knowledge and skills and practice them in daily life [55].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] Aponte J, Nokes KM. Validating an electronic health literacy scale in an older Hispanic population. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(17–18):2703–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13763. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studies have shown that increasing the frequency of subjects using professional health websites is an effective intervention measure to improve digital health literacy [56, 57].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] Melholt C, Joensson K, Spindler H, Hansen J, Andreasen JJ, Nielsen G, Noergaard A, Tracey A, Thorup C, Kringelholt R, Dinesen BI. Cardiac patients’ experiences with a telerehabilitation web portal: implications for eHealth literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(5):854–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.12.017. source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Mitsuhashi T. Effects of two-week e-learning on eHealth literacy: a randomized controlled trial of Japanese Internet users. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5251. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5251. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Considering that the level of digital health literacy is closely related to the Internet penetration rate and the level of economic development [19]”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] 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;15(5):e93. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2645. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this study only investigated community-dwelling older adults in the main urban areas of Chongqing, China, as well as other limitations in the selection associated with the sample design already explained in the methodological section.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The research by Paek et al. proved that communication with peers can enhance digital health literacy [54].”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] Paek HJ, Hove T. Social cognitive factors and perceived social influences that improve adolescent eHealth literacy. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):727–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.616627. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“among which the lack of interactive ability and application ability of digital health literacy deserved more attention from not only health professionals, but also public health policy makers and implementers.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
The sample of community-dwelling older adults in Chongqing represents community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China.
“This study was a cross-sectional study, which was carried out in the main urban areas of Chongqing, China from September 2020 to April 2021.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The lack of knowledge of the overall digital health literacy level of community-dwelling older adults in China hinders the long-term development of digital health and smart elderly care.
“However, at present, the lack in the knowledge of the overall digital health literacy level of community-dwelling older adults in China virtually hinders the long-term development of digital health and smart elderly care.”
The paper relies on this without support.
This study is the first to use a localized original assessment tool to evaluate digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in China.
“As far as we know, our study is the first attempt to use the localized original assessment tool to evaluate the digital health literacy of community-dwelling older adults in China.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The localized original assessment tool is more in line with the current era context and cultural background than the introduced universal scale, and its results are more targeted and accurate.
“Compared with the introduced universal scale used in previous studies, it is more in line with the current era context and cultural background, and the results are more targeted and accurate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
China gained full access to the Internet in 1994, later than many developed countries.
“China gained full access to the Internet in 1994, later than many developed countries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Older adults failed to keep pace with the emergence and development of the Internet, and some were marginalized by the Internet.
“Older adults failed to keep pace with the emergence and development of the Internet, some of whom were marginalized by the Internet.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Age-related barriers to technology use have been gradually weakened by high Internet penetration.
“Age-related barriers to technology use have been gradually weakened by the high Internet penetration.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Under the background of Chinese social culture, older adults often live with their children and grandchildren.
“Under the background of Chinese social culture, older adults often live with their children and grandchildren.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For instance, studies from China and South Korea suggest that lower digital health literacy is often observed in older adults, individuals with lower education levels, and those residing in rural areas (Jang & Je, 2022; Liu et al., 2022).”
From Sociodemographics and Digital Health Literacy in Using Wearables for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention: Cross-Sectional Nationwide Survey in Germany (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Our findings align with previous research showing that individuals with higher digital health literacy are more likely to adopt and integrate digital health interventions into their daily lives (Liu et al., 2022).”
From Sociodemographics and Digital Health Literacy in Using Wearables for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention: Cross-Sectional Nationwide Survey in Germany (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Methods > Participants and procedure
“Thus, δ was set to be 0.11 in this study.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Methods > Participants and procedure
“Using α = 0.05, Zα/2 = 1.96, δ = 0.03, our estimated minimum sample size was 418.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Internet usage characteristics and attitude towards Internet health information of the respondents
“More than 2/3 of the participants used the Internet (389/572, 68.01%), and the average year of Internet usage was 6.74 years (SD 0.23), ranging from 1 to 26 years.”
§ Current status and influencing factors of digital health literacy among community-dwelling older adults in Southwest China: a cross-sectional study > Results > Internet usage characteristics and attitude towards Internet health information of the respondents
“| 1–5 year (s) | 202 (35.31%) | 41.54 (12.75) | | |”
Citations
Cites
Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., van Hoof, J., Vrijhoef, H. J., & Wouters, E. (2015) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000430949 · Cited by 19,852
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20147 · Cited by 7,510
How to Calculate Sample Size for Different Study Designs in Medical Research?
Charan, J., & Biswas, T. (2013) · Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.4103/0253-7176.116232 · Cited by 3,455
eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale
Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27 · Cited by 2,680
eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World.
Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 · Cited by 2,643
Eysenbach, G. (2001) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20 · Cited by 2,449 · cited 1×
“With the development of Internet, information and communications technology (ICT) drives the constant innovation and upgrading of medical service models, and more and more health resources are available online, providing the public with a new method of seeking health information, facilitating health communication and…”
BackgroundWhat Is eHealth (3): A Systematic Review of Published Definitions
Oh, H., Jadad, A., Rizo, C., Enkin, M., Powell, J., & Pagliari, C. (2005) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7.1.e1 · Cited by 1,015
Choi, N. G., & DiNitto, D. M. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2645 · Cited by 871
Tennant, B., Stellefson, M., Dodd, V. J. N., Chaney, B. H., Chaney, D. J., Paige, S. R., & Alber, J. M. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3992 · Cited by 762
A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H., & Timpka, T. (2018) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1668091 · Cited by 688
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and application. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press; 2016.
- Tang Z, Wang F, Fu H. Development and assessment on the eHealth literacy scale for college students. Chin J Health Educ. 2014;30(1):35–8.
- Wu YM, Zhang M, Zhu LY. The research on the evaluation of consumer’s electronic health literacy and application in mobile health. Consum Econ. 2017;33(1):90–6, 55.
- Liu SQ, Fu JJ, Kong DH, Zhong Z, Gu CY, Luo Y. Development and reliability and validation test of the digital health literacy assessment scale for the community-dwelling elderly. Chin Nurs Res. 2021;35(23):4169–74. https://doi.org/10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2021.23.006. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abou Hashish, E. A., & Alnajjar, H. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05482-3 · Cited by 185
Factors influencing digital health literacy among older adults: a scoping review
Shi, Z., Du, X., Li, J., Hou, R., Sun, J., & Marohabutr, T. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1447747 · Cited by 161
Li, S., Cui, G., Yin, Y., & Xu, H. (2023) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076231178431 · Cited by 75
The level of electronic health literacy among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jiang, X., Wang, L., Leng, Y., Xie, R., Li, C., Nie, Z., Liu, D., & Wang, G. (2024) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/s13690-024-01428-9 · Cited by 65
Ma, S., & Chen, Z. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3468378 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, S., Zhao, H., Fu, J., Kong, D., Zhong, Z., Hong, Y., Tan, J., & Luo, Y.
- Affiliations
- Army Medical University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Tan, Jing
- Luo, Yu
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2022-05-17
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 996-996
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9112275
- OpenAlex
- W4280523621
- Semantic Scholar
- a84b34bd4e77efa6ac3e464ecb8ad210956d6f1a
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 37.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 19XRK001)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital literacy in education
- Keywords
- digital health literacy, community-dwelling older adults, internet use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived reliability, health concerns, educational attainment, digital divide, Southwest China
- MeSH terms
- Aged, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Telemedicine, Internet, Independent Living, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
