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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 small sample size used to represent the target population means the study may not have covered all context-specific behaviors that users with GAD may experience.
“Compared with other PBA studies [44,76,77], the small sample size used in this study to represent the target population means that study may not have covered all context-specific behaviors that users with GAD may experience.”
From Development and feasibility of a digital acceptance and commitment therapy⇓based intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: Pilot acceptability study (2021) · cites this paper as [77]
There is some evidence that intervention design formats that are accessible and engaging for people with lower levels of health literacy may also be acceptable and usable by people with higher levels.
“There is some evidence that intervention design formats that are accessible and engaging for people with lower levels of health literacy may also be acceptable and usable by people with higher levels.49”
From Understanding and Promoting Effective Engagement With Digital Behavior Change Interventions (2016) · cites this paper as [49]
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)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2015-10-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e230
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4642371
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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