Cited by 506Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Health Literacy and Health Information Technology Adoption: The Potential for a New Digital Divide

Open access
Mackert, Michael, Mabry-Flynn, Amanda, Champlin, Sara, Donovan, Erin E, Pounders, Kathrynn·2016·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-half of American adults exhibit low health literacy and thus struggle to find and use health information. Low health literacy is associated with negative outcomes including overall poorer health. Health information technology (HIT) makes health information available directly to patients through electronic tools including patient portals, wearable technology, and mobile apps. The direct availability of this information to patients, however, may be complicated by misunderstanding of HIT privacy and information sharing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether health literacy is associated with patients' use of four types of HIT tools: fitness and nutrition apps, activity trackers, and patient portals. Additionally, we sought to explore whether health literacy is associated with patients' perceived ease of use and usefulness of these HIT tools, as well as patients' perceptions of privacy offered by HIT tools and trust in government, media, technology companies, and health care. This study is the first wide-scale investigation of these interrelated concepts. METHODS: Participants were 4974 American adults (n=2102, 42.26% male, n=3146, 63.25% white, average age 43.5, SD 16.7 years). Participants completed the Newest Vital Sign measure of health literacy and indicated their actual use of HIT tools, as well as the perceived ease of use and usefulness of these applications. Participants also answered questions regarding information privacy and institutional trust, as well as demographic items. RESULTS: Cross-tabulation analysis indicated that adequate versus less than adequate health literacy was significantly associated with use of fitness apps (P=.02), nutrition apps (P<.001), activity trackers (P<.001), and patient portals (P<.001). Additionally, greater health literacy was significantly associated with greater perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness across all HIT tools after controlling for demographics. Regarding privacy perceptions of HIT and institutional trust, patients with greater health literacy often demonstrated decreased privacy perceptions for HIT tools including fitness apps (P<.001) and nutrition apps (P<.001). Health literacy was negatively associated with trust in government (P<.001), media (P<.001), and technology companies (P<.001). Interestingly, health literacy score was positively associated with trust in health care (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low health literacy were less likely to use HIT tools or perceive them as easy or useful, but they perceived information on HIT as private. Given the fast-paced evolution of technology, there is a pressing need to further the understanding of how health literacy is related to HIT app adoption and usage. This will ensure that all users receive the full health benefits from these technological advances, in a manner that protects health information privacy, and that users engage with organizations and providers they trust.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.6349

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Eng, D, 2013, Pediatr Diabetes, 14, 1
  2. Charles, D, 2015, Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems Among U.S. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals 2008-2014. ONC Data Brief, no. 23
  3. Bahmanziari, T, 2003, J Comput Inform Syst, 43, 46

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 506

Metadata

Authors
Mackert, M., Mabry-Flynn, A., Champlin, S., Donovan, E. E., & Pounders, K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of North Texas (US)
Corresponding author
Mackert, Michael
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2016-10-04
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
e264
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2528685687
Cited by
503
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 25
FWCI
55.26
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)
  • University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) (submittedVersion)
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 › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
literacy, health information technology adoption, digital divide, patient portals, fitness apps, nutrition apps, wearable activity trackers, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, institutional trust, public trust in government, trust in healthcare, wearable devices, mobile health apps, Newest Vital Sign, health disparities, patient empowerment, health information access, health equity
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Informatics, Health Records, Personal, Health Literacy, Mobile Applications, Digital Divide

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