Translation, cultural adaptation and validity assessment of the Dutch version of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire: a mixed-method approach.
Digital health
Health literacy
Psychometrics
Questionnaire design
Translation
eHealth
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 05 2023
30 05 2023
Historique:
received:
22
09
2022
accepted:
10
05
2023
medline:
1
6
2023
pubmed:
31
5
2023
entrez:
30
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for a comprehensive, person-centered assessment of eHealth literacy to understand and address eHealth literacy related needs, to improve equitable uptake and use of digital health technologies. We aimed to translate and culturally adapt the original eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) to Dutch and to collect initial validity evidence. The eHLQ was translated using a systematic approach with forward translation, an item intent matrix, back translation, and consensus meetings with the developer. A validity-driven and multi-study approach was used to collect validity evidence on 1) test content, 2) response processes and 3) internal structure. Cognitive interviews (n = 14) were held to assess test content and response processes (Study 1). A pre-final eHLQ version was completed by 1650 people participating in an eHealth study (Study 2). A seven-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data to assess the internal structure of the eHLQ. Invariance testing was performed across gender, age, education and current diagnosis. Cognitive interviews showed some problems in wording, phrasing and resonance with individual's world views. CFA demonstrated an equivalent internal structure to the hypothesized (original) eHLQ with acceptable fit indices. All items loaded substantially on their corresponding latent factors (range 0.51-0.81). The model was partially metric invariant across all subgroups. Comparison of scores between groups showed that people who were younger, higher educated and who had a current diagnosis generally scored higher across domains, however effect sizes were small. Data from both studies were triangulated, resulting in minor refinements to eight items and recommendations on use, score interpretation and reporting. The Dutch version of the eHLQ showed strong properties for assessing eHealth literacy in the Dutch context. While ongoing collection of validity evidence is recommended, the evidence presented indicate that the eHLQ can be used by researchers, eHealth developers and policy makers to identify eHealth literacy needs and inform the development of eHealth interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for a comprehensive, person-centered assessment of eHealth literacy to understand and address eHealth literacy related needs, to improve equitable uptake and use of digital health technologies.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to translate and culturally adapt the original eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) to Dutch and to collect initial validity evidence.
METHODS
The eHLQ was translated using a systematic approach with forward translation, an item intent matrix, back translation, and consensus meetings with the developer. A validity-driven and multi-study approach was used to collect validity evidence on 1) test content, 2) response processes and 3) internal structure. Cognitive interviews (n = 14) were held to assess test content and response processes (Study 1). A pre-final eHLQ version was completed by 1650 people participating in an eHealth study (Study 2). A seven-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data to assess the internal structure of the eHLQ. Invariance testing was performed across gender, age, education and current diagnosis.
RESULTS
Cognitive interviews showed some problems in wording, phrasing and resonance with individual's world views. CFA demonstrated an equivalent internal structure to the hypothesized (original) eHLQ with acceptable fit indices. All items loaded substantially on their corresponding latent factors (range 0.51-0.81). The model was partially metric invariant across all subgroups. Comparison of scores between groups showed that people who were younger, higher educated and who had a current diagnosis generally scored higher across domains, however effect sizes were small. Data from both studies were triangulated, resulting in minor refinements to eight items and recommendations on use, score interpretation and reporting.
CONCLUSION
The Dutch version of the eHLQ showed strong properties for assessing eHealth literacy in the Dutch context. While ongoing collection of validity evidence is recommended, the evidence presented indicate that the eHLQ can be used by researchers, eHealth developers and policy makers to identify eHealth literacy needs and inform the development of eHealth interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37254148
doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15869-4
pii: 10.1186/s12889-023-15869-4
pmc: PMC10227819
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1006Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Mar 8;24(3):e32777
pubmed: 35258475
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Jan 27;9(1):e15022
pubmed: 32012103
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jul;27(7):1695-1710
pubmed: 29464456
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 1;22(12):e24087
pubmed: 33147166
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 19;155(2):97-107
pubmed: 21768583
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
J Med Syst. 2020 Jun 15;44(7):132
pubmed: 32542571
Telemed J E Health. 2020 Sep;26(9):1118-1119
pubmed: 32429770
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Dec;19(12):1228-39
pubmed: 15610334
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;240:251-262
pubmed: 28972522
Circulation. 2020 Aug 4;142(5):510-512
pubmed: 32510987
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Apr;17(2):268-74
pubmed: 20874835
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Sep 19;8(9):e14517
pubmed: 31538944
BMJ Open. 2020 May 7;10(5):e037076
pubmed: 32385065
Am J Med. 2006 Feb;119(2):166.e7-16
pubmed: 16443422
Interact J Med Res. 2019 Apr 05;8(2):e8423
pubmed: 30950809
Res Nurs Health. 2007 Apr;30(2):224-34
pubmed: 17380524
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 15;23(11):e30644
pubmed: 34779781
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 16;8(2):e9
pubmed: 16867972
Pediatrics. 2020 Aug;146(2):
pubmed: 32747592
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 12;20(2):e36
pubmed: 29434011
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020 Aug;19(6):458-461
pubmed: 32667217
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;68(4):435-41
pubmed: 25698408
Fam Pract. 2021 Nov 24;38(6):845-847
pubmed: 34268563
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 26;20(1):130
pubmed: 32456680
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Feb;36(2):521-524
pubmed: 32472490
Interact J Med Res. 2016 May 25;5(2):e16
pubmed: 27226146
Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):229-38
pubmed: 12769135
J Urban Health. 2021 Apr;98(2):183-186
pubmed: 33471281
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Jun 12;28(6):1298-1307
pubmed: 33619519
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jul 16;13:658
pubmed: 23855504
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 May 6;21(1):150
pubmed: 33957909
BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Jan 28;15:18
pubmed: 24472182
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 10;20(5):e178
pubmed: 29748163
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Dec 12;16(12):e287
pubmed: 25499086
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 09;13(4):e86
pubmed: 22071338
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Mar 1;147(3):287-295
pubmed: 33443539
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 23;13(4):e125
pubmed: 22193243
Eur Respir J. 2021 Aug 5;58(2):
pubmed: 33795321
Oncologist. 2022 Jul 5;27(7):555-564
pubmed: 35348793
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 19;24(1):e32855
pubmed: 35044310
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 13;23(1):e22051
pubmed: 33439134
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 24;19(1):e27
pubmed: 28119275
J Mix Methods Res. 2010 Sep 20;4(4):342-360
pubmed: 22167325
Appl Nurs Res. 2006 Feb;19(1):38-42
pubmed: 16455440
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 2;22(9):e20953
pubmed: 32833660
BMJ. 2018 Apr 16;361:k1656
pubmed: 29661943
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2020 Jun;27(1):
pubmed: 32565418
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Oct 14;23(10):e30243
pubmed: 34647897
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27
pubmed: 17213046
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Aug;108:103644
pubmed: 32447127