Cited by 106Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and Education

Views of people with high and low levels of health literacy about a digital intervention to promote physical activity for diabetes: a qualitative study in five countries

Open access
Rowsell, Alison, Muller, Ingrid, Murray, Elizabeth, Little, Paul, Byrne, Christopher D, Ganahl, Kristin, Müller, Gabriele, Gibney, Sarah +4 more·2015·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy is associated with poor health-related knowledge, illness self-management, health service use, health, and survival, and thus addressing issues related to low health literacy has been highlighted as a pressing international priority. OBJECTIVE: To explore views of a digital health promotion intervention designed to be accessible to people with lower levels of health literacy, in particular examining reactions to the interactive and audiovisual elements of the intervention. METHODS: Qualitative think-aloud interviews were carried out with 65 adults with type 2 diabetes in the UK, Ireland, USA, Germany, and Austria, with purposive sampling to ensure representation of people with lower levels of health literacy. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. We then systematically compared views in subgroups based on country, health literacy level, age, gender, and time since diagnosis. RESULTS: Most participants from the chosen countries expressed positive views of most elements and features of the intervention. Some interactive and audiovisual elements required modification to increase their usability and perceived credibility and relevance. There were some differences in views based on age and gender, but very few differences relating to health literacy level or time since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In general, participants found the intervention content and format accessible, appropriate, engaging, and motivating. Digital interventions can and should be designed to be accessible and engaging for people with a wide range of health literacy levels.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.4999

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 106

Authors
Rowsell, A., Muller, I., Murray, E., Little, P., Byrne, C. D., Ganahl, K., Müller, G., Gibney, S., Lyles, C. R., Lucas, A., Nutbeam, D., & Yardley, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Ludwig Boltzmann Institut Health Promotion Research (AT)
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • San Francisco General Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2015-10-12
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
e230
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2113744584
Cited by
106
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6
FWCI
10.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/F029624/1)
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 › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
health literacy, type 2 diabetes, physical activity promotion, digital health interventions, user perspective, think-aloud interviews, audiovisual media, interactive content, intervention accessibility, usability, perceived credibility, cross-cultural comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Early Intervention, Educational, Qualitative Research, 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