| Literature DB >> 34104627 |
Yuxin Shi1, Denghui Ma1, Jun Zhang1, Bowen Chen2.
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to explore the current status of e-health literacy among Chinese older adults, and to summarize and analyze the related influencing factors. SUBJECT AND METHODS: Following the PRISMA Checklist, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, and China Science and Technology Journal Database to identify the relevant literature published between January 2000 and December 2020. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise the quality of the studies.Entities:
Keywords: E-health literacy; Influencing factors; Older adults; Systematic review
Year: 2021 PMID: 34104627 PMCID: PMC8175232 DOI: 10.1007/s10389-021-01604-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Z Gesundh Wiss ISSN: 0943-1853
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process
E-health literacy studies among Chinese people included in analysis
| First author | Sample | E-health literacy status among the Chinese elderly | Influencing factors | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ge Zang | 256 elderly hemodialysis patients (over 40 years old) in five hospitals in Zhengzhou city, China | Total score: 18. 50 ± 6. 08 Score of application ability: 11. 83 ± 4. 04 Score of evaluation ability: 4.41 ± 1. 63 Score of decision-making ability: 2. 25 ± 0. 99 | Quality of life, interpersonal relationships, somatic symptoms, fatigue, depression, sense of frustration | Senile maintained-hemodialysis patients’ e-health literacy level was low. In order to improve patients’ quality of life, it is suggested to improve the patients’ electronic health literacy. |
| Hanhan Zhou | 228 elderly people (over 60 years old) from eight communities in Jiangsu Province, China | Average score: 1.51 ± 0.96 Average score of application ability: 1.52 ± 0.96 Average score of evaluation ability: 1.50 ± 0.98 Average score of decision-making ability: 1.51 ± 1.03 | Credibility perception of finding health resources online, socioeconomic status (average monthly household income, educational attainment), family members teaching how to use internet to find health resources | Seniors in communities with high socioeconomic status have more abilities and opportunities to use social resources, which is conducive to the improvement of their e-health literacy. Family members teach that using the Internet to find health resources can better improve the ability of seniors in the community to search, understand and evaluate health information on electronic resources, as well as their ability to use the information obtained to process and solve health problems. |
| Shaojie Li | 1201 elderly people (over 60 years old) from 24 communities randomly selected from Jinan city, China | Total score: 17.24 ± 9.34 There were 133 elderly people scored more than 32 points The qualification rate of e-health literacy was 11. 1% | Educational attainment, type of household registration, type of medical insurance, whether being the main person to taking care of grandchildren, whether their parents being alive, pension model, self-assessment of health status, self-assessment of life stress | E-health literacy of the elderly is at a low level, and comprehensive intervention mechanisms of government, community, and family should be established. |
| Zhen Liu | 472 elderly people (over 60 years old) from rural areas in Zhengzhou city, China | Total score: 13.76 ± 7.30 | Gender, age, marital status and frequency of Internet usage | Rural elderly people have a low level of e-health literacy, which has many influencing factors. Medical staff should take effective auxiliary interventions to improve the quality of life of patients. |
| Lindsay Zibrik | Including 338 Chinese senior immigrants in British Columbia (75% over 60 years old) | Chinese immigrant seniors in British Columbia had low e-health literacy levels (specific data not mentioned) | Age, income, educational attainment, gender, English proficiency, accessibility barriers and attitudes, cultural barriers | Age, gender, income and educational attainment are significantly related to eHEALS outcomes. Language, accessibility, attitude, and cultural barriers compound e-health literacy barriers in Chinese immigrant seniors. E-health tools for self-management must be culturally-tailored and designed to serve diverse populations. Partnership with community organizations is an appropriate platform to facilitate e-health driven knowledge translation within multicultural communities. |
Summary of the quality assessment of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)
| Types of study design | Methodological quality criteria | Ge Zang | Hanhan Zhou | Shaojie Li | Zhen Liu | Lindsay Zibrik |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screening questions (for all types) | S1. Are there clear research questions? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| S2. Do the collected data make it possible to address the research questions? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| 1. Qualitative | 1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? | – | – | – | – | √ |
| 1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 2. Quantitative descriptive | 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? | √ | ? | √ | √ | √ |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the target population? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| 4.3. Are the measurements appropriate? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| 4.4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? | ? | ? | √ | ? | ? | |
| 4.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| 3. Mixed methods | 5.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | – | – | – | – | √ |
| 5.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 5.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 5.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | – | – | – | – | √ | |
| 5.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | – | – | – | – | √ |
Note: “√” = yes; “×” = no; “?” = cannot tell; “-” = not applicable