| Literature DB >> 36190672 |
Yan Zhang1, Peirong Xu1, Qiannan Sun2,3,4, Shantanu Baral2,3,4, Lijuan Xi1, Daorong Wang5,6,7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As Internet technology evolves, electronic health (e-health) literacy gradually becomes a key factor in healthy behaviors and health-related decision-making. However, little is known about the influencing factors of e-health literacy among cancer survivors. Thus, the objective of this study was to systematically review the status quo, assessment tools, and influencing factors of e-health literacy in cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer patients; E-health literacy; Influencing factors; Systematic review
Year: 2022 PMID: 36190672 PMCID: PMC9527376 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-022-01260-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer Surviv ISSN: 1932-2259 Impact factor: 4.062
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process
General information about included studies
| First author, year, country | Study design | Study setting | Study population | E-health literacy measure | E-health literacy Status | Results | Influencing factors | Categories of influencing factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Moon, Zuchowski, et al. 2022), England | A cross-sectional study | Participants were recruited from outpatient breast cancer clinics across NHS Trusts in England and Wales | 2009 female adult breast cancer patients who prescribed hormone therapy within the last 3 years | eHEALS scale (8-item) (Total score: 40) | Scores ranged from 8 to 40, with a mean score of 28.8 (SD = 7.34) | Poorer e-health literacy was associated with being older, having less education, and not having access to a mobile device. Deprivation level and Rural/Urban classification were not significantly associated with e-health literacy | Age, education level, having access to a mobile device | Predisposing factors: age, education level Enabling factor: having access to a mobile device |
(Hoogland, Mansfield, et al. 2020), USA | A cross-sectional study | Patients were recruited from the Radiation Oncology clinic waiting room at Moffitt Cancer Center between July 2018 and September 2018 | 198 adult cancer patients who were receiving radiotherapy | eHEALS scale (8-item) | Total score: Younger participants (< 65 years): Mean = 3.78, SD = 0.86; Older participants (≥ 65 years): Mean = 3.44, SD = 0.91 | Compared to younger patients, older patients had significantly lower eHealth literacy | Age | Predisposing factor: age |
(Heiman, Keinki, et al. 2018), Germany | A cross-sectional study | Participants took part in a lecture program on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Germany | 150 cancer patients during or after cancer treatment | The researchers developed different 5-question eHealth literacy scales on the basis of the eHEALS scale (Total score: 25) | The mean score was 14.7, with a score ranging from 5 to 25 | There was a significant correlation between a high eHealth literacy and search of web-based cancer information regularly | Regularly seeking for cancer-related information on the Internet | Enabling factor: regular seeking for cancer-related information on the Internet |
(Halwas, Griebel, et al. 2017), Germany | A cross-sectional study | The participants were attending a series of standardized lectures on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Germany | 108 cancer patients during or after cancer treatment | The researchers developed a different 8-item eHealth literacy scale based on the eHEALS scale (8 items: concerning understanding, finding, secureness, usefulness, reliability, and knowledge growth of health information provided through the Internet; finding and usage of smartphone/tablet Apps) (Total score: 80) | Mean value of concerning understanding: 6.5; Mean value of finding: 6.1; Mean value of secureness: 4.64; Mean value of usefulness: 4.82; Mean value of the reliability of health information provided through the Internet: 4.28; Mean value of knowledge growth of health information provided through the Internet: 6.33; Mean value of finding and usage of smartphone: 4.85; Mean value of finding and usage of tablet Apps: 4.86 | Younger participants were not only more confident in allocating health-related Internet information into reliable or unreliable facts, but also more confident and capable of gaining medical knowledge through eHealth services | Age | Predisposing factor: age |
(Zhou and Wang, 2020), China | A cross-sectional study | We collected data from two well-known and active cancer survivor–specific online health communities (Mi Jian and Yu Ai Gong Wu) in China between January and February 2019 | 162 patients with history of cancer diagnosis and post treatment | eHEALS scale (Chinese version, 8-item) | Not mentioned | Female cancer survivors had a greater degree of e-health literacy, while cancer survivors with a higher level of education demonstrated a higher level of e-health literacy. E-health literacy was linked to cancer survivors' health information seeking, health knowledge contribution, and emotional support behaviors. Furthermore, e-health literacy was strongly connected with the interaction effect of health knowledge contribution and emotional support | Gender, education level, health knowledge, health knowledge contribution, emotional support behaviors seeking, and the interaction effect between health knowledge contribution and emotional support | Predisposing factors: gender, education level Enabling factors: health knowledge seeking, health knowledge contribution, emotional support behaviors, and the interaction effect between health knowledge contribution and emotional support |
(Milne, Puts et al. 2015), Canada | A cross-sectional study | Patients were conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, from August 2013 to February 2014 | 83 lung cancer survivors who were undergoing or had undergone treatment for a primary lung cancer | eHEALS scale. (8-item) | Mean score: 24 | There was no statistically significant correlation between eHealth literacy groups and age, gender, living situation, overall health, quality of life (QoL), or histology. High eHealth literacy was linked to educational attainment and resource availability | Education level and access to e-resources | Predisposing factor: education level Enabling factor: access to e-resources |
(Zhao, Wang, et al. 2021), China | A cross-sectional study | Patients with an intestinal stoma who were re-visited in the gastroenterology outpatient clinic of a third-class hospital in Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China, were selected for the study from January to December 2019 | 307 colorectal cancer patients who had undergone enterostomy | eHEALS scale. (Chinese version, 8-item) | Total score: 24.05 ± 6.29 | Age, education level, frequency of searching for online health information, whether willing to use the Internet to find health information, and types of websites preferred to search for health information were the influencing factors of eHealth literacy | Age, education level, frequency of searching for online health information, whether willing to use the Internet to find health information, and types of websites preferred to search for health information | Predisposing factors: age, education level Enabling factors: frequency of searching for online health information, whether willing to use the Internet to find health information, and types of websites preferred to search for health information |
(Kang, Lu, et al. 2020), China | A cross-sectional study | Patients in a Class III Grade A cancer hospital in Beijing, China, were selected from November 2019 to January 2020 | 132 malignant tumor patients who were receiving inpatient care in tumor hospital. Most patients were stage IV(83 cases, 62.9%) | eHEALS scale. (Chinese version, 8-item) | Total score: 24.21 ± 9.07 | The main influencing factors of eHealth literacy of cancer patients included age, domicile place, the number of Internet tools, the number of accesses to health information, discussion with family members about using the Internet to find health resources. Sex, marital status, tumor type, tumor stage, diagnosis time, BMI were found to be not associated with e-health literacy | Age, domicile place, the number of Internet tools, the number of accesses to health information, discussing with family members about using the Internet to find health resources | Predisposing factors: age, domicile place Enabling factors: the number of Internet tools, the number of accesses to health information, discussing with family members about using the Internet to find health resources |
(Zhang, 2018), China | A cross-sectional study | Cancer patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in each department of a Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital in Ninghai, Zhejiang province, China, were selected from July to October 2017 | 94 cancer patients in the oncology outpatient department. Most patients (98.9%) were treated with radiotherapy and nearly half of the patients had received chemotherapy (48.9%) | eHEALS scale. (Chinese version, 8-item) | Total score: 24.34 ± 3.92 | Age and education level were the influencing factors of eHealth literacy of cancer patients. There was no significant association with type of health insurance, the number of chemotherapy, tumor stage, tumor type, and eHealth literacy | Age and education level | Predisposing factors: age, education level |
Methodological quality of included studies
| JBI critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies | Study citation | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Moon, Zuchowski, et al. 2022) | (Hoogland, Mansfield, et al. 2020) | (Heiman, Keinki, et al. 2018) | (Halwas, Griebel, et al. 2017) | (Zhou and Wang, 2020) | (Milne, Puts et al. 2015) | (Zhao, Wang, et al. 2021) | (Kang, Lu, et al. 2020) | (Zhang, 2018) | |
| 1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not clear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Not clear | Not clear |
| 5. Were confounding factors identified? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Overall appraisal | High | High | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | High | High | High |
Fig. 2Influencing factors in the theoretical framework