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 accessAbstract
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.
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
“Under capability, the main factors identified were app literacy skills (B), app awareness (U), available user guidance (B), health information (E), statistical information on progress (E), well-designed reminders (E), features to reduce cognitive load (E), and self-monitoring features (E).”
From Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [53]
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
“Being younger than 44 years was associated with a higher level of uptake and engagement [38,41,42,44,49,53,55,63,64] than older adults.”
From Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [53]
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
“Living in an urban area [42,44,55]; having a better education level, such as having high school education or higher [41,42,44,64] and college degree or higher [41,53]; and having a higher income [44] were also associated with better engagement with health and well-being apps.”
From Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [53]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Mackert et al [53] also found that adequate heath literacy was associated with increased engagement with fitness and nutrition apps.”
From Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [53]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Apps were more frequently downloaded by women than men, with the percentage ranging from 59% to 74% [38,41,49,53,55,63], although 1 study found that being male was associated with using an app to manage alcohol consumption [65].”
From Influences on the Uptake of and Engagement With Health and Well-Being Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [53]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the citing paper
“Advances in digital technologies can unintentionally reinforce or increase existing health disparities [95].”
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, & Institute of Medicine (2004) · doi:10.17226/10883 · Cited by 3,444
Chaudhry, B., Wang, J., Wu, S., Maglione, M., Mojica, W., Roth, E., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125 · Cited by 3,159
Eysenbach, G. (2001) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20 · Cited by 2,449 · cited 1×
“…and compelling health information is pressing. eHealth (the practice of using the Internet and telecommunication technology to provide health communication and services) [4] presents a powerful tool for bringing health information to low health-literate audiences in ways that are easier to access.”
BackgroundQuick 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
Kutner, M. A., Greenburg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. A. (2006) · National Center for Education Statistics · Cited by 1,545
Häyrinen, K., Saranto, K., & Nykänen, P. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.09.001 · Cited by 1,374
Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C., & Blumenthal, D. (2011) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178 · Cited by 1,311
Trust and risk in e-government adoption
Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002 · Cited by 1,235
Berkman, N. D., Davis, T. C., & Mccormack, L. A. (2010) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.499985 · Cited by 1,058
Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M. (2010) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-231 · Cited by 851
Can This Patient Read and Understand Written Health Information?
Powers, B. J., Trinh, J. V., & Bosworth, H. B. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.896 · Cited by 313
The Promise and Peril of Mobile Health Applications for Diabetes and Endocrinology
Eng, D. S., & Lee, J. M. (2013) · Pediatric Diabetes · doi:10.1111/pedi.12034 · Cited by 215
Measuring Adult Literacy in Health Care: Performance of the Newest Vital Sign
Osborn, C. Y., Weiss, B. D., Davis, T. C., Skripkauskas, S., Rodrigue, C., Bass, P. F., & Wolf, M. S. (2007) · American Journal of Health Behavior · doi:10.5993/ajhb.31.s1.6 · Cited by 213
Measuring adult literacy in health care: performance of the newest vital sign.
Osborn, C. Y., Weiss, B. D., Davis, T. C., et al. (2007) · PubMed · doi:10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.supp.s36 · Cited by 188
Health Literacy Measurement: A Proposed Research Agenda
Pleasant, A., McKinney, J., & Rikard, R. V. (2011) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.604392 · Cited by 177
Health Literacy Instrument in Family Medicine: The "Newest Vital Sign" Ease of Use and Correlates
Shah, L. C., West, P., Bremmeyr, K., & Savoy‐Moore, R. T. (2010) · The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2010.02.070278 · Cited by 169
Is Trust Important in Technology Adoption? A Policy Capturing Approach
Bahmanziari, T., Pearson, J. M., & Crosby, L. (2003) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2003.11647533 · Cited by 162
Patient Perceptions of a Personal Health Record: A Test of the Diffusion of Innovation Model
Emani, S., Yamin, C. K., Peters, E. M., Karson, A. S., Lipsitz, S. R., Wald, J. S., Williams, D. H., & Bates, D. W. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2278 · Cited by 140
Meppelink, C. S., Smit, E. G., Buurman, B. M., & van Weert, J. C. M. (2015) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1037425 · Cited by 132
Child, J. T., Pearson, J. C., & Petronio, S. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21122 · Cited by 127
Lazard, A. J., Watkins, I., Mackert, M., Xie, B., Stephens, K. K., & Shalev, H. (2015) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv174 · Cited by 112
Self-citationMackert, M., Kahlor, L. A., Tyler, D. O., & Gustafson, J. (2009) · Telemedicine Journal and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2009.0012 · Cited by 107
Self-citationThe Many Health Literacies: Advancing Research or Fragmentation?
Mackert, M., Champlin, S., Su, Z., & Guadagno, M. (2015) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1037422 · Cited by 69
Self-citationThe Role of Information Technology in Health Literacy Research
Bickmore, T., & Paasche‐Orlow, M. K. (2012) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.712626 · Cited by 55
Patients' Perceptions of Screening for Health Literacy: Reactions to the Newest Vital Sign
VanGeest, J. B., Welch, V. L. L., & Weiner, S. J. (2010) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810731003753117 · Cited by 54
Assessing Health Literacy in Renal Failure and Kidney Transplant Patients
Escobedo, W., & Weismuller, P. C. (2013) · Progress in Transplantation · doi:10.7182/pit2013473 · Cited by 53
Boxell, E., Smith, S. G., Morris, M., Kummer, S., Rowlands, G., Waller, J., Wardle, J., & Simon, A. E. (2012) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.712617 · Cited by 51
Patient education on mobile devices: an e-health intervention for low health literate audiences
Mackert, M., Love, B., & Whitten, P. (2009) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551508092258 · Cited by 41
Self-citationBariatric surgery for adolescents
Stefater, M., Jenkins, T. M., & Inge, T. H. (2012) · Pediatric Diabetes · doi:10.1111/j.1399-5448.2012.00899.x · Cited by 37
Interventions for Low Health Literate Audiences
Mackert, M., Whitten, P. S., & García, A. (2008) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00407.x · Cited by 23
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Eng, D, 2013, Pediatr Diabetes, 14, 1
- Charles, D, 2015, Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems Among U.S. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals 2008-2014. ONC Data Brief, no. 23
- Bahmanziari, T, 2003, J Comput Inform Syst, 43, 46
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Firth, J., Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Carney, R., Pratap, A., Rosenbaum, S., & Sarris, J. (2017) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20472 · Cited by 1,097
Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Larsen, M. E., Firth, J., & Christensen, H. (2018) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/eb-2018-102891 · Cited by 790
Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare
Meskó, B., Drobni, Z. D., Bényei, É., Gergely, B., & Győrffy, Z. (2017) · mHealth · doi:10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.07 · Cited by 734
Magnani, J. W., Mujahid, M. S., Aronow, H. D., Cené, C. W., Dickson, V. V., Havranek, E. P., Morgenstern, L. B., Paasche‐Orlow, M. K., Pollak, A. W., & Willey, J. Z. (2018) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000579 · Cited by 626
Fagherazzi, G., Goetzinger, C., Rashid, M. A., Aguayo, G. A., & Huiart, L. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19284 · Cited by 426
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
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2016-10-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e264
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5069402
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
