Wang Chen, Chang Luoyuan, Chen Xindou, Kong Jingqi, Qi Huiying
Department of Health Informatics and Management, School of Health Humanities, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China, 86 1082802419.
School of Health Humanities, Peking University, Beijing, China.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Aug 20;27:e66965. doi: 10.2196/66965.
eHealth literacy is a necessary competency for individuals to achieve health self-management in the digital age, and the evaluation of eHealth literacy is an important foundation for clarifying individual eHealth literacy levels and implementing eHealth behavior interventions.
This study reviews the research progress of eHealth literacy assessment instruments to offer suggestions for further development and improvement as well as to provide a reference to eHealth intervention.
We reviewed papers on Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCO in English between 2006 and 2024 and included studies involving the development of eHealth literacy assessment instruments, which must be published in peer-reviewed journals. An analysis in terms of the development process, instrument characteristics, and assessment themes was conducted to reveal the content, features, and application of currently available eHealth literacy assessment instruments.
Searches yielded 2972 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. The analysis of the 13 studies indicated that the development of instruments is improving constantly, as the concept of eHealth literacy evolves. In total, 9 of the 13 tools are subjective assessments, with eHealth Literacy Scale being the most widely used. In contrast, the remaining 4 comprehensive assessment tools incorporate objective evaluation criteria. The 13 instruments' reliability ranged from 0.52 to 0.976. Validity was reported for 12 tools (excluding eHealth Literacy Scale), covering 5 types: content validity, structural validity, discriminant validity, external validity, and convergent validity. Regarding assessment themes, skill factors are involved in many instruments, but psychology factors and information factors are less concerned.
The evaluation of the characteristics of existing eHealth literacy assessment tools in this paper can provide a reference for the selection of assessment tools. Overall, subjective and comprehensive assessment tools for eHealth literacy have their own advantages and disadvantages. Subjective assessment tools have a friendly evaluation method, but their test validity is relatively low. There is a risk of time-consuming and low recognition for comprehensive evaluation tools. Future research should be based on the deepening of eHealth literacy connotation, further verifying the effectiveness of existing eHealth literacy assessment tools and adding objective evaluation dimensions.
电子健康素养是个体在数字时代实现健康自我管理的一项必要能力，而电子健康素养评估是明确个体电子健康素养水平及实施电子健康行为干预的重要基础。
本研究回顾电子健康素养评估工具的研究进展，为其进一步发展与完善提供建议，并为电子健康干预提供参考。
我们检索了2006年至2024年间Web of Science、Scopus、PubMed和EBSCO上的英文论文，纳入涉及电子健康素养评估工具开发且发表于同行评审期刊的研究。从开发过程、工具特点和评估主题方面进行分析，以揭示当前可用电子健康素养评估工具的内容、特征及应用情况。
检索得到2972项研究，最终纳入13项研究进行分析。对这13项研究的分析表明，随着电子健康素养概念的演变，工具的开发在不断改进。13项工具中共有9项为主观评估，其中电子健康素养量表使用最为广泛。相比之下，其余4项综合评估工具纳入了客观评估标准。这13项工具的信度范围为0.52至0.976。12项工具（不包括电子健康素养量表）报告了效度，涵盖5种类型：内容效度、结构效度、区分效度、外部效度和聚合效度。关于评估主题，许多工具涉及技能因素，但对心理因素和信息因素关注较少。
本文对现有电子健康素养评估工具特征的评估可为评估工具的选择提供参考。总体而言，电子健康素养的主观和综合评估工具各有优缺点。主观评估工具评估方式友好，但测试效度相对较低。综合评估工具存在耗时且认可度低的风险。未来研究应基于电子健康素养内涵的深化，进一步验证现有电子健康素养评估工具的有效性并增加客观评估维度。
