IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3293-d1067120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) and Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI) in Assessing Electronic Health Literacy in Chinese Older Adults: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Luyao Xie

    (Centre for Health Behaviours Research, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Phoenix K. H. Mo

    (Centre for Health Behaviours Research, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

This study compared the reliability, construct validity, and respondents’ preference of the Chinese version of 8-item eHEALS (C-eHEALS) and 21-item DHLI (C-DHLI) in assessing older adults’ electronic health (eHealth) literacy using a mixed-methods approach. A web-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted among 277 Chinese older adults from September to October 2021, and 15 respondents were subsequently interviewed to understand their preference of scale to use in practice. Results showed that the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of both scales were satisfactory. For the construct validity, the C-DHLI score showed stronger positive correlations with having Internet use for health information and higher educational attainments, occupational skill levels, self-rated Internet skills, and health literacy than the C-eHEALS score. In addition, younger age, higher household income, urban residence, and longer Internet use history were only positively correlated with C-DHLI score. Qualitative data suggested that most interviewees perceived the C-DHLI as more readable than C-eHEALS for its clear structure, specific description, short sentence length, and less semantic complexity. Findings revealed that both scales are reliable tools to measure eHealth literacy among Chinese older adults, and the C-DHLI seemed to be a more valid and favored instrument for the general Chinese older population based on the quantitative and qualitative results.

Suggested Citation

  • Luyao Xie & Phoenix K. H. Mo, 2023. "Comparison of eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) and Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI) in Assessing Electronic Health Literacy in Chinese Older Adults: A Mixed-Methods Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3293-:d:1067120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3293/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3293/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judith Aponte & Kathleen M. Nokes, 2017. "Validating an electronic health literacy scale in an older hispanic population," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(17-18), pages 2703-2711, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mariusz Duplaga & Karolina Sobecka & Sylwia Wójcik, 2019. "The Reliability and Validity of the Telephone-Based and Online Polish eHealth Literacy Scale Based on Two Nationally Representative Samples," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Zsombor Zrubka & Ottó Hajdu & Fanni Rencz & Petra Baji & László Gulácsi & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the eHealth Literacy Scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 57-69, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3293-:d:1067120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.