The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Low Health Literacy and Evaluation of Online Health Information: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Recent years have witnessed a dramatic increase in consumer online health information seeking. The quality of online health information, however, remains questionable. The issue of information evaluation has become a hot topic, leading to the development of guidelines and checklists to design high-quality online health information. However, little attention has been devoted to how consumers, in particular people with low health literacy, evaluate online health information. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to review existing evidence on the association between low health literacy and (1) people's ability to evaluate online health information, (2) perceived quality of online health information, (3) trust in online health information, and (4) use of evaluation criteria for online health information. METHODS: Five academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Communication and Mass-media Complete) were systematically searched. We included peer-reviewed publications investigating differences in the evaluation of online information between people with different health literacy levels. RESULTS: After abstract and full-text screening, 38 articles were included in the review. Only four studies investigated the specific role of low health literacy in the evaluation of online health information. The other studies examined the association between educational level or other skills-based proxies for health literacy, such as general literacy, and outcomes. Results indicate that low health literacy (and related skills) are negatively related to the ability to evaluate online health information and trust in online health information. Evidence on the association with perceived quality of online health information and use of evaluation criteria is inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that low health literacy (and related skills) play a role in the evaluation of online health information. This topic is therefore worth more scholarly attention. Based on the results of this review, future research in this field should (1) specifically focus on health literacy, (2) devote more attention to the identification of the different criteria people use to evaluate online health information, (3) develop shared definitions and measures for the most commonly used outcomes in the field of evaluation of online health information, and (4) assess the relationship between the different evaluative dimensions and the role played by health literacy in shaping their interplay.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“Our findings echoes Diviani et al., who highlighted that low health literacy impedes the ability to critically evaluate online health information [40].”
From Acceptance and perceived usefulness of digital health services in the management of chronic urticaria: a survey of patients and physicians (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
Nutbeam, D. (2000) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/15.3.259 · Cited by 5,205
Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers
Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 · Cited by 4,672
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
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
(2017) · doi:10.5040/9798400682018.ch-003 · Cited by 2,248
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1954) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02713272 · Cited by 2,237
Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign
Weiss, B. (2005) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.405 · Cited by 2,222
The test of functional health literacy in adults
Parker, R. M., Baker, D. W., Williams, M. V., & Nurss, J. R. (1995) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02640361 · Cited by 2,034
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Flanagin, AJ, 2008, Digital Media, Youth,Credibility. The John D.Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, 5
- Schulz, P, 2005, Stud Commun Sci, 5, 1
- Davis, T C, 1993, Fam Med, 25, 391
- Nurss, J, 1998, Directions for administration and scoring and technical data, short test of functional health literacy in adults (STOFHLA-English and STOFHLA-Spanish)
- 10.1080/08858190701348067 · DOI
- Lawson, Rob, 2011, N Z Med J, 124, 98
- Marazienė, Daiva, 2012, Medicina (Kaunas), 48, 371
- Richter, J G, 2009, Clin Exp Rheumatol, 27, 15
- Zoellner, Jamie, 2009, Prev Chronic Dis, 6, A128
Cited by
Sorted by citations
van der Vaart, R., & Drossaert, C. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6709 · Cited by 687
Differences in Rural and Urban Health Information Access and Use
Chen, X., Orom, H., Hay, J. L., Waters, E. A., Schofield, E., Li, Y., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (2018) · The Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/jrh.12335 · Cited by 635
Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research
Sbaffi, L., & Rowley, J. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7579 · Cited by 537
Rathbone, A. L., & Prescott, J. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7740 · Cited by 497
Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information.
Chen, X., Hay, J. L., Waters, E. A., Kiviniemi, M. T., Biddle, C., Schofield, E., Li, Y., Kaphingst, K., & Orom, H. (2018) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2018.1511658 · Cited by 548
Metadata
- Authors
- Diviani, N., van den Putte, B., Giani, S., & van Weert, J. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Diviani, Nicola
- ORCID
- Diviani, Nicola
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2015-05-07
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e112
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4468598
- OpenAlex
- W1923752250
- Cited by
- 638
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 90 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (148345)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Keywords
- low health literacy, online health information, information evaluation, trust in health information, evaluation criteria, health information seeking, consumer health information
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Internet, Trust, Consumer Health Information, Health Literacy, Information Seeking Behavior
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
