An integrative systematic review on interventions to improve layperson's ability to identify trustworthy digital health information.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2024-10-25 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000638
Hind Mohamed, Esme Kittle, Nehal Nour, Ruba Hamed, Kaylem Feeney, Jon Salsberg, Dervla Kelly
{"title":"An integrative systematic review on interventions to improve layperson's ability to identify trustworthy digital health information.","authors":"Hind Mohamed, Esme Kittle, Nehal Nour, Ruba Hamed, Kaylem Feeney, Jon Salsberg, Dervla Kelly","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health information on the Internet has a ubiquitous influence on health consumers' behaviour. Searching and evaluating online health information poses a real challenge for many health consumers. To our knowledge, our systematic review paper is the first to explore the interventions targeting lay people to improve their e-health literacy skills. Our paper aims to explore interventions to improve laypeople ability to identify trustworthy online health information. The search was conducted on Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, Academic Search Complete, and APA psych info. Publications were selected by screening title, abstract, and full text, then manual review of reference lists of selected publications. Data was extracted from eligible studies on an excel sheet about the types of interventions, the outcomes of the interventions and whether they are effective, and the barriers and facilitators for using the interventions by consumers. A mixed-methods appraisal tool was used to appraise evidence from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review approach was used as a guidance for narrative synthesis. The total number of included studies is twelve. Media literacy interventions are the most common type of interventions. Few studies measured the effect of the interventions on patient health outcomes. All the procedural and navigation/ evaluation skills-building interventions are significantly effective. Computer/internet illiteracy and the absence of guidance/facilitators are significant barriers to web-based intervention use. Few interventions are distinguished by its implementation in a context tailored to consumers, using a human-centred design approach, and delivery through multiple health stakeholders' partnership. There is potential for further research to understand how to improve consumers health information use focusing on collaborative learning, using human-centred approaches, and addressing the social determinants of health.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"3 10","pages":"e0000638"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11508166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health information on the Internet has a ubiquitous influence on health consumers' behaviour. Searching and evaluating online health information poses a real challenge for many health consumers. To our knowledge, our systematic review paper is the first to explore the interventions targeting lay people to improve their e-health literacy skills. Our paper aims to explore interventions to improve laypeople ability to identify trustworthy online health information. The search was conducted on Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, Academic Search Complete, and APA psych info. Publications were selected by screening title, abstract, and full text, then manual review of reference lists of selected publications. Data was extracted from eligible studies on an excel sheet about the types of interventions, the outcomes of the interventions and whether they are effective, and the barriers and facilitators for using the interventions by consumers. A mixed-methods appraisal tool was used to appraise evidence from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review approach was used as a guidance for narrative synthesis. The total number of included studies is twelve. Media literacy interventions are the most common type of interventions. Few studies measured the effect of the interventions on patient health outcomes. All the procedural and navigation/ evaluation skills-building interventions are significantly effective. Computer/internet illiteracy and the absence of guidance/facilitators are significant barriers to web-based intervention use. Few interventions are distinguished by its implementation in a context tailored to consumers, using a human-centred design approach, and delivery through multiple health stakeholders' partnership. There is potential for further research to understand how to improve consumers health information use focusing on collaborative learning, using human-centred approaches, and addressing the social determinants of health.

关于提高非专业人士识别可信数字健康信息能力的干预措施的综合系统综述。
互联网上的健康信息对健康消费者的行为有着无处不在的影响。对许多健康消费者来说,搜索和评估在线健康信息是一项真正的挑战。据我们所知,我们的系统综述论文是第一篇探讨针对非专业人士的干预措施,以提高他们的电子健康知识技能的论文。我们的论文旨在探讨提高非专业人士识别可信在线健康信息能力的干预措施。我们在 Ovid Medline、Embase、Cochrane 数据库、Academic Search Complete 和 APA psych info 上进行了检索。通过筛选标题、摘要和全文,然后对所选出版物的参考文献列表进行人工审阅。通过 excel 表从符合条件的研究中提取数据,内容包括干预措施的类型、干预措施的结果和是否有效,以及消费者使用干预措施的障碍和促进因素。采用混合方法评估工具对定量、定性和混合方法研究的证据进行评估。Whittemore和Knafl的综合综述法被用作叙事综合的指导。共纳入 12 项研究。媒体素养干预是最常见的干预类型。很少有研究测量了干预措施对患者健康结果的影响。所有程序性干预和导航/评估技能培养干预都非常有效。计算机/互联网文盲和缺乏指导/协助者是使用网络干预的主要障碍。很少有干预措施能够在为消费者量身定制的环境中实施,采用以人为本的设计方法,并通过多个健康利益相关者的合作来实施。我们有潜力开展进一步的研究,以了解如何改善消费者对健康信息的使用,重点是协作学习、使用以人为本的方法以及解决健康的社会决定因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信