How Do Scholars Conceptualize and Conduct Health and Digital Health Literacy Research? Survey of Federally Funded Scholars.

SDoH community health digital health literacy digital health tools eHealth literacy health care health literacy public health research research scholarship social determinants of health

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 03 02 2024
accepted: 17 09 2024
revised: 22 05 2024
medline: 1 11 2024
pubmed: 1 11 2024
entrez: 31 10 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The concept of health literacy (HL) is constantly evolving, and social determinants of health (SDoH) have been receiving considerable attention in public health scholarship. Since a 1-size-fits-all approach for HL fails to account for multiple contextual factors and as a result poses challenges in improving literacy levels, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the current state of HL and digital health literacy (DHL) research. This study examined scholars' conceptualization and scope of work focused on HL and DHL. Using a search string, investigators (N=2042) focusing on HL, DHL, or both were identified from the grantee websites of the National Institutes of Health RePORTER (RePORT Expenditures and Results) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators were emailed a survey via Qualtrics. Survey questions examined the focus of work; whether the investigators studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH; the frameworks, definitions, and approaches used; and research settings. We analyzed survey data using SPSS Statistics version 28 and descriptive analysis, including frequencies and percentages, was conducted. Chi-square tests were performed to explore the association between the focus of work, settings, and age groups included in the investigators' research. A total of 193 (9.5%) of 2042 investigators responded to the online survey. Most investigators (76/153, 49.7%) were from public health, 83/193 (43%) reported their research focused on HL alone, 46/193 (23.8%) mentioned DHL, and 64/193 (33.2%) mentioned both. The majority (133/153, 86.9%) studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH, 106/135 (78.5%) conducted HL/DHL work in a community setting, and 100/156 (64.1%) reported not using any specific definition to guide their work. Digital tools (89/135, 65.9%), plain-language materials (82/135, 60.7%), and visual guides (56/135, 41.5%) were the top 3 approaches used. Most worked with adults (131/139, 94.2%) and all races and ethnicities (47/121, 38.8%). HL and DHL research largely considered SDoH. Multiple HL tools and approaches were used that support the examination and improvement of literacy and communication surrounding health care issues.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The concept of health literacy (HL) is constantly evolving, and social determinants of health (SDoH) have been receiving considerable attention in public health scholarship. Since a 1-size-fits-all approach for HL fails to account for multiple contextual factors and as a result poses challenges in improving literacy levels, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the current state of HL and digital health literacy (DHL) research.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study examined scholars' conceptualization and scope of work focused on HL and DHL.
METHODS METHODS
Using a search string, investigators (N=2042) focusing on HL, DHL, or both were identified from the grantee websites of the National Institutes of Health RePORTER (RePORT Expenditures and Results) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators were emailed a survey via Qualtrics. Survey questions examined the focus of work; whether the investigators studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH; the frameworks, definitions, and approaches used; and research settings. We analyzed survey data using SPSS Statistics version 28 and descriptive analysis, including frequencies and percentages, was conducted. Chi-square tests were performed to explore the association between the focus of work, settings, and age groups included in the investigators' research.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 193 (9.5%) of 2042 investigators responded to the online survey. Most investigators (76/153, 49.7%) were from public health, 83/193 (43%) reported their research focused on HL alone, 46/193 (23.8%) mentioned DHL, and 64/193 (33.2%) mentioned both. The majority (133/153, 86.9%) studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH, 106/135 (78.5%) conducted HL/DHL work in a community setting, and 100/156 (64.1%) reported not using any specific definition to guide their work. Digital tools (89/135, 65.9%), plain-language materials (82/135, 60.7%), and visual guides (56/135, 41.5%) were the top 3 approaches used. Most worked with adults (131/139, 94.2%) and all races and ethnicities (47/121, 38.8%).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
HL and DHL research largely considered SDoH. Multiple HL tools and approaches were used that support the examination and improvement of literacy and communication surrounding health care issues.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39481097
pii: v26i1e57040
doi: 10.2196/57040
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e57040

Informations de copyright

©Mayank Sakhuja, Brooks Yelton, Simone Kavarana, Lauren Schaurer, Jancham Rachel Rumthao, Samuel Noblet, Michelle A Arent, Mark M Macauda, Lorie Donelle, Daniela B Friedman. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 31.10.2024.

Auteurs

Mayank Sakhuja (M)

UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Brooks Yelton (B)

Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Simone Kavarana (S)

Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Lauren Schaurer (L)

Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Jancham Rachel Rumthao (JR)

Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Samuel Noblet (S)

Envera Health, Richmond, VA, United States.

Michelle A Arent (MA)

Department of Athletics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Mark M Macauda (MM)

Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.
Center for Applied Research and Evaluation, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Lorie Donelle (L)

Department of Biobehavioral Health and Nursing Science, College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Daniela B Friedman (DB)

Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH