This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

eHealth Literacy / Digital Literacy (390) Secondary Use of Clinical Data for Research and Surveillance (366) Demographics of Users, Social & Digital Divide (739) Participatory Medicine & E-Patients (773) Personal Health Records, Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records, Patient Portals (573) Electronic Health Records (1053)

Published on in Vol 24, No 9 (2022): September

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/35772, first published .
Digital Health Literacy as a Predictor of Awareness, Engagement, and Use of a National Web-Based Personal Health Record: Population-Based Survey Study

Digital Health Literacy as a Predictor of Awareness, Engagement, and Use of a National Web-Based Personal Health Record: Population-Based Survey Study

Digital Health Literacy as a Predictor of Awareness, Engagement, and Use of a National Web-Based Personal Health Record: Population-Based Survey Study

Authors of this article:

Christina Cheng1 Author Orcid Image ;   Emma Gearon2 Author Orcid Image ;   Melanie Hawkins1 Author Orcid Image ;   Crystal McPhee3 Author Orcid Image ;   Lisa Hanna4 Author Orcid Image ;   Roy Batterham5 Author Orcid Image ;   Richard H Osborne1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (17) Tweetations (11) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Centre for Global Health and Equity, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia

    2Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    3Beyondblue, Melbourne, Australia

    4School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

    5Faculty of Public Health, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Corresponding Author:

    Christina Cheng, PhD

    Centre for Global Health and Equity

    School of Health Sciences

    Swinburne University of Technology

    Room 907, Level 9, AMDC Building

    453/469-477 Burwood Road

    Hawthorn, Victoria 3122

    Australia

    Phone: 61 392145470

    Email: cccheng@swin.edu.au


    Background: Web-based personal health records (PHRs) have the potential to improve the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of health care. However, the international uptake of web-based PHRs has been slow. Populations experiencing disadvantages are less likely to use web-based PHRs, potentially widening health inequities within and among countries.

    Objective: With limited understanding of the predictors of community uptake and use of web-based PHR, the aim of this study was to identify the predictors of awareness, engagement, and use of the Australian national web-based PHR, My Health Record (MyHR).

    Methods: A population-based survey of adult participants residing in regional Victoria, Australia, was conducted in 2018 using telephone interviews. Logistic regression, adjusted for age, was used to assess the relationship among digital health literacy, health literacy, and demographic characteristics, and the 3 dependent variables of MyHR: awareness, engagement, and use. Digital health literacy and health literacy were measured using multidimensional tools, using all 7 scales of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire and 4 out of the 9 scales of the Health Literacy Questionnaire.

    Results: A total of 998 responses were analyzed. Many elements of digital health literacy were strongly associated with MyHR awareness, engagement, and use. A 1-unit increase in each of the 7 eHealth Literacy Questionnaire scales was associated with a 2- to 4-fold increase in the odds of using MyHR: using technology to process health information (odds ratio [OR] 4.14, 95% CI 2.34-7.31), understanding of health concepts and language (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.08-4.69), ability to actively engage with digital services (OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.55-7.75), feel safe and in control (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.43-3.88), motivated to engage with digital services (OR 4.24, 95% CI 2.36-7.61), access to digital services that work (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.32-4.69), and digital services that suit individual needs (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.97-6.15). The Health Literacy Questionnaire scales of health care support, actively managing health, and social support were also associated with a 1- to 2-fold increase in the odds of using MyHR. Using the internet to search for health information was another strong predictor; however, older people and those with less education were less likely to use MyHR.

    Conclusions: This study revealed strong and consistent patterns of association between digital health literacy and the use of a web-based PHR. The results indicate potential actions for promoting PHR uptake, including improving digital technology and skill experiences that may improve digital health literacy and willingness to engage in web-based PHR. Uptake may also be improved through more responsive digital services, strengthened health care, and better social support. A holistic approach, including targeted solutions, is needed to ensure that web-based PHR can realize its full potential to help reduce health inequities.

    J Med Internet Res 2022;24(9):e35772

    doi:10.2196/35772

    Keywords

    eHealth; mobile health; mHealth; health literacy; health equity; electronic health records; vulnerable populations; disadvantaged populations 


    Background

    Digital technologies have enabled the storage of personal health information in a web-based environment where people can keep track of and access their health records as needed [1-4]. The World Health Organization considers a national web-based personal health record (PHR) an important component of universal health coverage, given its potential to improve the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of health care [5]. In 2016, half (47%) of the member states responding to a survey indicated that they had introduced a national web-based PHR system [5,6].

    In 2012, Australia, a country with universal health coverage, rolled out a national web-based PHR system, My Health Record (MyHR), aiming to provide Australians with safer, faster and more efficient health care [7,8]. MyHR is a secure web-based summary of a person’s health information, allowing people to control and share personal health information with their health care providers anytime and anywhere, thereby improving communication between clinicians and patients. The system is available in more than 18 languages and is enabled for people with low vision and blindness to ensure access to people with various needs [9]. However, MyHR uptake was slow. Only approximately 21% (5.2 million out of 24.6 million) of Australia’s total population signed up for MyHR in 2017, after 5 years of rollout [10]. In 2018, the Australian Government announced that MyHR would become an opt-out system, meaning that people would automatically be enrolled in MyHR unless they elected not to be during the opt-out period between July 2018 and January 2019 [11].

    The slow uptake of web-based PHRs is not unique to Australia [1]. A study in the United States reported that only 20% of survey participants used web-based PHRs [12]. After an investment of £8 million (approximately US $11 million) in a web-based PHR in the United Kingdom in 2007, the system HealthSpace was abandoned in 2011 owing to low adoption. The postevaluation report commented that the lack of health literacy and digital literacy in some users might be one of the reasons for nonadoption [13].

    Digital Health Literacy

    Digital health literacy (also called eHealth literacy) can be one of the deciding factors when determining whether to use a digital health system [14-16]. Digital health literacy refers to an individual’s “ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem” [14]. This concept has continued to evolve with the ever-changing digital landscape since it was first conceived in 2006. Nevertheless, it is grounded in health literacy, which is defined as “people’s knowledge, confidence, and comfort, which accumulate through daily activities, social interactions, and across generations, to access, understand, appraise, remember, and use information about health and health care for the health and wellbeing of themselves and those around them” (World Health Organization, unpublished data, September 2022).

    PHRs have the potential to reduce health inequities [17,18]. However, this potential may be derailed by the digital divide [2,3], which refers to inequitable access, use, and outcomes of technology use among subgroups of society, because people with higher income or education are more likely to have better access or skills to use technology than other groups, such as culturally diverse minorities, rural residents, or people with lower income or education [19-22]. These groups are also less likely to use web-based PHRs [3,23] and face more digital health literacy challenges [24-27]. Hence, well-intentioned efforts to reduce health inequities must be implemented with care to ensure that they do not worsen health disparities [2,3,23]. Understanding the predictors of using web-based PHRs is an essential first step to avoid this pitfall.

    To date, research on the predictors of web-based PHR uptake is limited. Only a few studies could be identified, and they mostly focused on age, education, health status, computer skills, and experiences in web-based information seeking [28-33]. Only one study has specifically examined digital health literacy [33]. Given the limited understanding of the predictors of uptake and use of web-based PHR, the aim of this study was to determine the predictors of awareness, engagement, and use of the Australian personal web-based health record MyHR during the MyHR opt-out period, with a focus on digital health literacy. Regarding predictors, this study referred to the statistical procedure used to identify factors associated with PHR uptake and use, not as an indication of the causal relationship with these factors.


    Study Design

    This study was part of a larger study conducted in the city of Ballarat and the surrounding regional area in Victoria, Australia [34]. Victoria is the second most populous state in Australia, with a population of approximately 6.7 million as of June 2021 [35]. The city of Ballarat is situated in the regional area of north-central Victoria. This area was selected as it was a trial site for the early implementation of the MyHR [36] and chosen in partnership with the Australian Digital Health Agency, the commonwealth entity established to oversee the operation and evolution of Australian digital health capability [37]. The aim of the larger study was to generate insights into how to maximize the uptake and use of MyHR and other digital technologies. The study was an application of the Optimizing Health Literacy and Access (Ophelia) process, which involved identifying local needs and then using a co-design approach to engage stakeholders (consumers, practitioners, and managers) to generate fit-for-purpose solutions through insights from local wisdom [38]. This paper presents the findings from the needs assessment phase of the study.

    Data Collection

    A computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey was administered from October 1, 2018, to October 31, 2018, to participants from the general population. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were aged >18 years, able to complete a telephone survey in English, and resided in the Ballarat Goldfields region of Victoria, Australia. There were no quotas for age or sex. The interviews were conducted by a contract research company (Strahan Research Pty Ltd). The interviewer team underwent specialized training with the project team. A pilot phase was conducted, with the responses reviewed before the formal implementation of the survey. Each interview started with a description of the project requirements and the consent process, followed by the survey. Only respondents who consented to participate were included in this study. Each interview lasted approximately 17 minutes. The completed CATI surveys were deidentified before being provided to the project team.

    To ensure the sample was stratified by socioeconomic position, it was drawn using systematic random sampling: all postcodes of the region were ordered by an area-level marker of socioeconomic position based on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage, an index that summarizes the economic and social conditions of people within an area [39]. A database of both landline telephone and mobile phone numbers was matched to the postal areas, and the sample was drawn using a random start fixed interval sampling technique. The fixed interval was calculated by dividing the total population of the Ballarat Goldfields region by the desired sample size of 1000.

    Ethics Approval

    Ethics approval was obtained from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HEAG-H 157_2018).

    Survey Instruments

    To examine the possible predictors of awareness, engagement, and use of MyHR, digital health literacy assessment, demographic data, and use of health services data were collected. Digital health literacy was assessed using the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) [40], complemented by the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) [41] to provide context for the eHLQ results. The CATI survey consisted of all 7 scales of the eHLQ and 4 scales from the HLQ, followed by questions about the participants’ demographics, health status, use of physical and digital health services, and experience of MyHR.

    The eHLQ and HLQ were developed using a grounded validity-driven approach [42] to assess the multidimensional concepts of digital health literacy and health literacy. Both tools, at construction and initial validity testing, were found to be psychometrically robust [40,41], with later studies presenting acceptable to strong psychometric properties when the tools were used in different contexts [43-51]. The eHLQ consists of 35 items, with 7 scales representing the 7 dimensions of digital health literacy (see Multimedia Appendix 1 for scale definitions):

    1. Using technology to process health information
    2. Understanding of health concepts and language
    3. Ability to actively engage with digital services
    4. Feel safe and in control
    5. Motivated to engage with digital services
    6. Access to digital services that work
    7. Digital services that suit individual needs

    A 4-point response option of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree was used in the eHLQ. Scale scores were calculated by averaging the item scores within each scale with equal weighting, yielding 7 scale scores, each with a score range of 1 to 4 [40].

    The full HLQ consists of 44 items across 9 scales [41] (see Multimedia Appendix 1 for scale definitions). However, to reduce the length of the telephone interviews, only 4 scales were used in this survey (in italics as follows):

    1. Feeling understood and supported by health care providers
    2. Having sufficient information to manage my health
    3. Actively managing my health
    4. Social support for health
    5. Appraisal of health information
    6. Ability to actively engage with health care providers
    7. Navigating the health care system
    8. Ability to find good information
    9. Understand health information well enough to know what to do

    Scales 1 and 4 of the HLQ reflect a social orientation that is positive in managing one’s health, and a PHR is a potentially valuable tool for this, and scale 1 also reflects the quality of communication and trust in health care providers, which is regarded as potentially important as health care providers are likely to be a key source of information for people about whether they use the MyHR. Scales 3 and 7 reflect general engagement with health and health care and are expected to provide context regarding a person’s level of interest in MyHR.

    The HLQ was subjected to rigorous validity testing in the initial validation study. The unidimensionality of each scale was established with evidence of satisfactory fit for each of the nine 1-factor models, and composite reliability of each scale ranged from 0.77 to 0.90 [41]. Validity evidence for the English version was further confirmed in subsequent validation studies in Australia [43,47,52,53], the English version in other contexts [54] and elsewhere [44-46,55-57], confirming that the HLQ scales can be used independently to measure different dimensions of health literacy.

    Similar to the eHLQ, scales 1, 3, and 4 of the HLQ also use the 4-point response options of strongly disagree to strongly agree. For items of scale 7, a 5-point response option of cannot do or always difficult, usually difficult, sometimes difficult, usually easy, and always easy is used. The calculation of scale scores is the same as that of the eHLQ, except for HLQ scale 7, which has a score range of 1 to 5.

    For the assessment of demographic background, age was measured as a continuous variable (years); sex was measured as female or male; highest educational attainment was measured in 4 categories (did not complete secondary school; completed secondary school; trade, apprenticeship, certificate, or diploma; and university); number of chronic health conditions was a discrete variable, calculated as the sum of any of the 8 conditions—asthma, arthritis, anxiety, cancer, cardiovascular disease or heart problems, chronic pain, depression, and diabetes (no condition; 1 condition; and 2 or more conditions); self-rated health was measured on a discrete scale with 6 options, ranging from excellent to very poor; number of contacts with a health professional in the past 12 months was measured in 4 categories (≥13 times; 7-12 times; 2-6 times; and 0-1 time); and use of the internet to search for health-related information in the past 12 months was measured as a binary variable (yes or no).

    The 3 variables—MyHR awareness, MyHR engagement, and MyHR use or intention to use—were determined by 3 questions in the survey. MyHR awareness was measured in the total sample using the question Do you have a My Health Record? (yes, no, or not sure). Participants who answered not sure were classified as unaware, and those who responded either yes or no were classified as aware, because it was a clear indication that they were aware of the existence of MyHR. For MyHR engagement, participants who answered yes to the aforementioned question were classified as engaged, and those who answered no, as not engaged. MyHR use was measured in the engaged subpopulation, who were asked, Do you use your My Health Record? (yes and no). Participants who answered yes were categorized as user, whereas participants who responded with a no were directed to the question, Do you intend to use My Health Record? (yes, no, or not sure). Participants who responded yes to this final question were classified as intend to use and were categorized as user. Those who responded that they did not intend to use MyHR were categorized as nonuser. To ensure that the variable gave a clear signal, engaged participants who chose the not sure option were excluded from analysis. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram for identifying awareness (aware or unaware), engagement (engaged or not engaged), and use or intention to use (user or nonuser).

    ‎
    Figure 1. Flow diagram for identifying My Health Record awareness (aware or not aware), engagement (engaged or not engaged), and use or intention to use (user or nonuser; N=998).
    View this figure

    Statistical Analysis

    As this was an exploratory study, a sample size of 1000 was chosen to provide ample power to detect small to moderate differences across target sex, age, education, and other subgroups (ie, 0.1-0.2–unit differences among subgroups on the 4-point response range on the eHLQ scales, with a power of at least 0.8, α of .05, and SD of 0.7), conservatively based on sample characteristics reported in the validity testing paper by Kayser et al [40].

    The data were analyzed using Stata (version 15; StataCorp) [58]. Descriptive statistics of demographics and mean and 95% CIs were calculated for eHLQ and HLQ scores. The demographics of the sample were compared with those of the population of the Ballarat Goldfields region of the Western Victoria Primary Health Network (WVPHN) [59] to determine the representativeness of the sample. Primary health networks are independent primary health care organizations established throughout Australia by the Australian Government in 2015 to reform the primary health care system using a patient-oriented approach to medical services in their regions. The Ballarat Goldfields region of Victoria is part of the WVPHN, covering 21 areas in the western district of Victoria, Australia.

    Logistic regression, adjusted for age, was performed to assess the relationship among independent variables, including demographic characteristics, digital health literacy, and health literacy, and the 3 dependent variables of MyHR: awareness, engagement, and use. Data collected via the eHLQ and HLQ were treated as continuous variables. The study was explorative, and no hypothesis was established, with independent variables for analysis selected based on factors plausibly associated with engagement with digital health technologies.

    To ensure that the assumptions of the logistic regression were met, independent variables were collapsed as required to ensure that there were 20 or more people in each stratum. As such, the self-rated health variable was collapsed into 5 categories for all 3 dependent variables, with poor and very poor combined. The number of contacts with a health professional was collapsed into 3 categories for MyHR engagement and 2 categories for MyHR use. Education was collapsed into 3 categories, and self-rated health was 2 categories for MyHR use.


    Sample Characteristics

    A total of 2839 calls were made and 1000 responses were recorded, resulting in a response rate of 35.2%. Of the 1000 CATI survey responses, 2 participants were found to be ineligible for the survey because of age, leaving the data to 998 participants for analysis. For these 998 participants, there were no missing data for any of the variables. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the final sample. Compared with the Ballarat Goldfields region population, the sample had a similar proportion of people who were identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (18/998, 1.8% for the survey compared with 2204/157,472, 1.4%) and a similar proportion of women (536/998, 53.7% for the survey compared with 80,594/157,472, 51.18%). However, the survey sample had a higher proportion of people aged 55 to 70 years (384/998, 38.5% for the survey vs 31,344/157,472, 19.9%) and >70 years (441/998, 41.2% for the survey vs 20,091/157,472, 12.76%), and a higher proportion of people with a university education (307/998, 30.8% for the survey vs 26,770/157,472, 17%; see Multimedia Appendix 2).

    Approximately half of the sample (462/998, 46.3%) were male participants, and 79.7% (796/998) were aged >55 years. Approximately one-fourth of the sample (272/998, 27.3%) were living with 1 chronic condition, and 14.1% (141/998) reported having 2 or more of the 8 chronic conditions presented, with arthritis (144/998, 14.4%) and cardiovascular disease or heart problems (129/998, 12.9%) being the most commonly reported. More than half of the sample (578/998, 57.9%) reported having used the internet in the past year to search for health-related information (Table 1). Approximately two-thirds of the participants (639/998, 64%) were aware of MyHR, and 32.1% (320/998) were engaged with MyHR. However, only 6.3% (63/998) were current users of MyHR, and 10.3% (103/998) of the participants indicated that they intended to use the system (Figure 1).

    For digital health literacy, participants generally disagreed (for mean score of <2.5 on a scale, ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree) that they were using technology to process health information (eHLQ scale 1), had the ability to engage with digital services (eHLQ scale 3), were motivated to engage with digital services (eHLQ scale 5), and had digital services that suit their needs (eHLQ scale 7). However, they reported a generally good understanding of health concepts (eHLQ scale 2). For health literacy, participants agreed that they had good social (HLQ scale 4) and health care support (HLQ scale 1) and were actively managing their health (HLQ scale 3; Table 1).

    Table 1. Participant characteristics (N=998).
    CharacteristicsValue
    Sex, n (%)

    		Female536 (53.7)

    		Male462 (46.3)
    Age (years), n (%)

    		18 to <3533 (3.3)

    		35 to <55169 (16.9)

    		55 to <75562 (56.3)

    		≥75234 (23.4)
    Spoke English at home, n (%)8 (0.8)
    Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, n (%)18 (1.8)
    Education level, n (%)

    		Completed primary school or below91 (9.1)

    		Did not complete secondary school218 (21.8)

    		Completed secondary school136 (13.6)

    		Trade, apprenticeship, certificate, or diploma246 (24.6)

    		University307 (30.8)
    Reported long-standing conditionsa, n (%)

    		Arthritis144 (14.4)

    		Asthma42 (4.2)

    		Cancer53 (5.3)

    		Cardiovascular disease or heart problems129 (12.9)

    		Diabetes84 (8.4)

    		Anxiety29 (2.9)

    		Depression45 (4.5)

    		Chronic pain87 (8.7)
    Number of long-standing conditions reportedb, n (%)

    		0585 (58.6)

    		1272 (27.3)

    		2102 (10.2)

    		3 or more39 (3.9)
    Number of contacts with a health professional in the past 12 months, n (%)

    		12 or more269 (27)

    		7 to 11196 (19.6)

    		2 to 6446 (44.7)

    		Once61 (6.1)

    		Not at all26 (2.6)
    Self-rated health, n (%)

    		Excellent170 (17)

    		Very good270 (27.1)

    		Good293 (29.4)

    		Fair165 (16.5)

    		Poor76 (7.6)

    		Very poor24 (2.4)
    Whether internet is used to search for health-related information, n (%)

    		Yes578 (57.9)

    		No420 (42.1)
    eHealth Literacy Questionnaire scales (score range 1 to 4), mean (95% CI)

    		1. Using technology to process health information2.34 (2.31-2.38)

    		2. Understanding of health concepts and language2.93 (2.91-2.96)

    		3. Ability to actively engage with digital services2.46 (2.42-2.49)

    		4. Feel safe and in control2.59 (2.56-2.63)

    		5. Motivated to engage with digital services2.40 (2.37-2.44)

    		6. Access to digital services that work2.51 (2.48-2.54)

    		7. Digital services that suit individual needs2.39 (2.35-2.42)
    Health Literacy Questionnaire scales (score range 1 to 4), mean (95% CI)

    		1. Feeling understood and supported by health care providers3.20 (3.10-3.20)

    		3. Actively managing my health3.02 (2.99-3.05)

    		4. Social support for health3.05 (3.02-3.08)
    Health Literacy Questionnaire (score range 1 to 5), mean (95% CI) scale

    		7. Navigating the health care system3.95 (3.90-3.99)

    aParticipants might select more than one condition.

    bNumber based on long-standing conditions selected by participants (range 0-8).

    Predictors of MyHR Awareness, Engagement, and Use or Intention to Use

    Awareness

    Among all independent variables tested, digital health literacy was a strong predictor of MyHR awareness (Table 2 and Multimedia Appendix 3). With the exception of the eHLQ scale 2, Understanding of health concepts and language, a 1-unit increase in each of the other 6 eHLQ scales was associated with a 1.28- to 1.99-fold increase in the odds of MyHR awareness, with scale 6, Access to digital services that work, being the strongest. However, the 4 HLQ scales, representing health literacy, were not predictors of MyHR awareness.

    For demographic factors, only sex and internet use to search for health-related information in the past 12 months were moderately strong predictors of MyHR awareness. Being female (odds ratio [OR] 1.44, 95% CI 1.11-1.87) and using the internet for health information (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.15-2.01) were associated with higher odds of MyHR awareness compared with being male and not using the internet (Multimedia Appendix 3).

    Table 2. Logistic regression predicting likelihood of My Health Record awareness, engagement, and use or intention to use, as measured by the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire and Health Literacy Questionnaire Scales.
    Scale usedAwareness (aware n=639; unaware n=359)Engagement (engaged n=320; not engaged n=319)Use or intention to use (user n=166; nonuser n=86)

    		Odds ratio (95% CI)P valueOdds ratio (95% CI)P valueOdds ratio (95% CI)P value
    eHealth Literacy Questionnaire scales

    		1. Using technology to process health information1.77 (1.42-2.22)<.0011.81 (1.35-2.42).0014.14 (2.34-7.31)<.001

    		2. Understanding of health concepts and language1.28 (0.92-1.77).142.62 (1.70-4.03)<.0012.25 (1.08-4.69).03

    		3. Ability to actively engage with digital services1.53 (1.25-1.89)<.0012.12 (1.60-2.81)<.0014.44 (2.55-7.75)<.001

    		4. Feel safe and in control1.47 (1.17-1.85).0011.61 (1.20-2.14).0012.36 (1.43-3.88).001

    		5. Motivated to engage with digital services1.75 (1.40-2.19)<.0012.00 (1.48-2.71)<.0014.24 (2.36-7.61)<.001

    		6. Access to digital services that work1.99 (1.51-2.64)<.0011.90 (1.33-2.70)<.0012.49 (1.32-4.69).005

    		7. Digital services that suit individual needs1.63 (1.30-2.04)<.0011.89 (1.40-2.55)<.0013.48 (1.97-6.15)<.001
    Health Literacy Questionnaire scales

    		1. Feeling understood and supported by health care providers1.15 (0.90-1.48).261.63 (1.19-2.22).0021.89 (1.10-3.27).02

    		3. Actively managing my health0.89 (0.66-1.21).461.23 (0.87-1.80).242.28 (1.18-4.38).01

    		4. Social support for health1.02 (0.78-1.33).891.74 (1.25-2.42).0012.10 (1.15-3.84).02

    		7. Navigating the health care system1.10 (0.92-1.31).291.15 (0.93-1.42).201.24 (0.87-1.75).23
    Engagement

    All 7 dimensions of digital health literacy, as assessed by the eHLQ, were strongly associated with MyHR engagement (Table 2 and Multimedia Appendix 4) compared with the other independent variables. A 1-unit increase on each scale was associated with a 1.61- to 2.62-fold increase in the odds of MyHR engagement. Unlike MyHR awareness, in which scale 2, Understanding of health concepts and language, was not a predictor; this dimension demonstrated the strongest association with engagement among all the digital health literacy dimensions.

    Although the 4 health literacy dimensions assessed by the HLQ were not predictors of awareness, HLQ scale 1, Feeling understood and supported by health care providers, and scale 4, Social support for health, were significant predictors of MyHR engagement. A 1-unit increase in each scale was associated with 1.63-fold and 1.74-fold increase in the odds of engagement (Table 2 and Multimedia Appendix 4).

    The use of the internet to search for health-related information continues to be an important predictor of MyHR engagement, in addition to awareness. Other strong predictors of engagement included age and the number of chronic conditions. Younger people were significantly more likely to engage with the MyHR, with every 10-year grouping increase being associated with a 20% reduction in the odds of MyHR engagement (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). Having 2 or more chronic diseases or conditions was associated with a 1.88-fold increase in the odds of engagement compared with having no chronic conditions (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.16-3.07; Multimedia Appendix 4).

    Use or Intention to Use

    Digital health literacy was again a strong predictor of MyHR use or intention to use (Table 2 and Multimedia Appendix 5). A 1-unit increase in each of the eHLQ scales was associated with a 2.25- to 4.44-fold increase in the odds of using or intending to use MyHR, with scale 3, Ability to engage with digital services, being notably strong, followed by scale 5, Motivated to engage with digital services, and scale 1, Using technology to process health information.

    Health literacy was also a significant predictor of MyHR use. A 1-unit increase in HLQ scale 1, Feeling understood and supported by health care providers, scale 3, Actively managing my health, and scale 4, Social support for health, was associated with a 1.89-, 2.28-, and 2.1-fold increase in the odds of using or intending to use MyHR.

    Being female (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.05-3.00), having a university education (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.23-5.02), and using the internet to search for health-related information in the past year (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.64-5.37) were more likely to use or intend to use MyHR compared with being male, not completing secondary school, or not using the internet to search for health-related information (Multimedia Appendix 5).


    Principal Findings

    This study used a population-based survey to explore the predictors of awareness, engagement, and use of a national web-based PHR, MyHR, using multidimensional measures of health literacy. Digital health literacy was strongly and consistently associated with MyHR awareness, engagement, and use. Most notably, people who reported that they were using technology for health, had the ability and motivation to engage with digital services, and found that digital services met their individual needs were 3 to 4 times more likely to use or intend to use MyHR compared with their counterparts. Other clear associations included dimensions of health literacy relating to positive relationships with health care providers and social support and using the internet to search for health information.

    Comparison With Prior Work

    The limited number of studies on the predictors of PHR uptake and the use of digital health literacy as a general concept in previous studies make it difficult to compare the findings of this study with those of prior studies. Nevertheless, this study found that only one-third of the sample (320/998, 32.1%) was engaged with MyHR, and only a very few participants (63/998, 6.3%) were current users. This is in line with the data revealed at an Australian Senate estimate hearing in December 2019 that only 4% of Australians logged into MyHR more than once [60].

    In a qualitative study of 66 Australian women who were regular users of web-based health information, Lupton [61] found that factors such as lack of interest, security, and privacy concerns or not seeing any benefits of using MyHR were potential barriers to using MyHR. This study also identified eHLQ scale 4, Feel safe and in control, and scale 5, Motivated to engage with digital services, as strongly associated with MyHR awareness, engagement, and use or intention to use. Another notable finding is the eHLQ scale 2, Understanding of health language and concepts, which was not associated with awareness but was the strongest predictor of engagement and a moderately strong predictor of use. This finding echoes the October 2021 statistics from MyHR, which showed that the documents most viewed by Australians were pathology reports, with >1.6 million views, a huge jump of 613% compared with the views 12 months earlier [62]. The immunization report, introduced in early 2021, was also one of the top 10 items people looked at in October 2021, with 2.7 million views, an increase of 68% compared with views a month earlier [62]. This could indicate that a better understanding of one’s health is one of the purposes for engaging with MyHR.

    Digital Health Literacy

    An important finding of this study is the potential role of digital health literacy in the adoption and use of web-based PHR. Instead of simply reporting that higher or lower digital health literacy is linked to the uptake of PHR, as in the study by Noblin et al [33], this study examined the 7 dimensions of digital health literacy and the relative strengths of the association of digital health literacy with awareness and engagement of PHR. By using a multidimensional instrument, this study provided more nuanced insights into people’s MyHR awareness, engagement, and use or intention to use. The dimensions of using technology for health (eHLQ scale 1, Using technology to process health information) and ability (eHLQ scale 3, Ability to actively engage with digital services) as well as motivation to use technology (eHLQ scale 5, Motivated to engage with digital services) are all strongly associated with using MyHR, with a 4.14- to 4.44-increase in the odds of using or intention to use web-based PHR. This is further confirmed, because using the internet to search for health information was another strong predictor, especially in use or intention to use.

    When interpreting the results of this study, it is useful to consider the 7 dimensions of digital health literacy measured and ask the question, “How does a person develop in this dimension?” It is clear that a person’s digital health literacy will develop along with their experiences of using digital health technologies; for better or worse, positive experiences will increase their trust, confidence, and perceptions of value, whereas negative experiences will do the opposite. Therefore, digital health literacy is clearly not just a predictor of the use of technologies but also, if not more so, a consequence, especially among people with few prior experiences of using digital health technologies.

    However, the direction of causality was not assumed in this study. Although initiatives to develop digital skills may be an effective way to increase the adoption of MyHR (and is a commonly used strategy to improve digital health literacy [63]), an alternative is to use the assessment of health literacy as a means to understand and shape the experiences of people as they engage with digital health technologies and the processes that build (or undermine) trust, confidence, and perceived benefits. This would lead to a process of designing both the features and rolling out of digital technologies in such a way as to maximize virtuous cycles and minimize confidence eroding cycles, guided by an understanding of the digital health literacy of users. This overall process can be described as “health literacy development.”

    Implications and Recommendations

    Although digital skill training may have the potential to increase the likelihood of using web-based PHR and is likely to be practical and easy to implement, it should also be noted that other potential predictors identified in this study may also be important to consider when developing community-based interventions and leveraging the important role that health professionals may have in influencing people’s knowledge and confidence in engaging with digital records. With eHLQ scale 4, Feel safe and in control, being a strong predictor, addressing people’s privacy concerns is an action that may be a key building block to engagement. The eHLQ scale 2, Understanding of health language and concepts, while was not associated with being aware of MyHR, was moderately associated with engagement and use, suggesting that initiatives to promote the benefits of using the system to better understand and manage people’s own health should be considered. In fact, it is likely that when people see the benefits of using web-based PHR, they may become more motivated to use digital technologies, leading to cyclical growth in both confidence and intent to use MyHR along with digital health literacy.

    Besides, the notion of including other nondigital actions is further supported by the finding that predictors of engagement and use included the health literacy dimensions represented by the HLQ scale 1, Feeling understood and supported by health care providers, scale 3, Actively managing my health, and scale 4, Social support for health. This indicates that public health education should not only target individual users of MyHR but also provide supportive health care and social networks to encourage the use of web-based PHR. Hence, an approach that considers the social factors surrounding the use of web-based PHR is a critical aspect of health literacy development.

    In a review of the information quality and usability of MyHR in 2018 using a health literacy framework, Walsh et al [64] found that only 16% of such resources could be rated as easy to read, 88% were text based, images to assist learning were limited, and color and large buttons to facilitate engagement and navigation were missing. They concluded that people at risk of lower health literacy did not have equitable access to the system, potentially increasing health disparities between users and nonusers. Although the MyHR website is regularly updated, the MyHR website as of March 2022 features a small button to listen to the website, and translation to other languages is available only for some pages, not the full website. As this study found that digital services that suit individual needs were associated with a 3.5-fold increase in the odds of using or intending to use MyHR, actions such as improving the readability, usability, and accessibility of MyHR to ensure that the system is responsive to all users’ needs may maximize equitable access to web-based PHR. An easy-to-use digital system may boost people’s confidence and motivation to use digital health technologies and, in turn, reinforce their engagement with the system and perhaps develop the digital health literacy of individuals.

    Furthermore, this study found that older people and those with less education were less likely to engage in or use MyHR. These findings indicate that there are population groups that may become disadvantaged as countries move to web-based PHR, leading to a potential widening of health disparities. Special initiatives with targeted and tailored interventions are needed to ensure that no group remains left behind. A co-design approach to developing these initiatives with those with lived experience in diverse communities is also recommended, because this approach has been considered the best practice “to reduce inequality and empower vulnerable communities” [65].

    Future Directions

    This study was the needs assessment phase of a larger study that used the Ophelia process to identify solutions to maximize the use of digital technologies, including MyHR. The Ophelia process takes a co-design approach to create and implement solutions to understand and improve access, equity, and outcomes by addressing health literacy needs [38]. It has been shown to be effective in various studies [66-69] and is easy to apply in diverse settings from European hospital settings to Egyptian fishing villages [70-73]. In addition to identifying the predictors of PHR use, the data of this study were also used to identify digital health literacy profiles among community members. These profiles reflect the digital health literacy challenges, preferences, and strengths of respondents regarding the adoption and use of MyHR. The next phase of this study involved integrating quantitative data profiles with demographic and interview data to create vignettes (or stories) of typical community members about their use of digital health systems. The vignettes were then presented at idea generation workshops attended by community members and frontline health professionals. This process allows for co-design opportunities using local wisdom to generate clear and actionable recommendations to increase the uptake and use of MyHR and achieve widespread participation in the process of health literacy development.

    The finding that only 6.3% of the survey sample were MyHR users indicates that attempts to engage the Australian population with MyHR might not have been successful at that time. Since the opt-out period when around 10% (approximately 2.5 million) of Australians opted out of the system [74], approximately 90,000 people who previously opted out or canceled their records had registered for a record by June 2021 [75]. Further population-based surveys should be undertaken to measure changes in and predictors of awareness, engagement, and use of MyHR, especially as the use of digital health services has become more common during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings will inform further actions to improve the uptake rate of active MyHR users.

    Limitations

    A limitation of this study is that it was conducted in a regional area of Victoria, which may not be representative of the Australian population. However, the aim of this study was to identify digital health literacy needs, and rural residents were found to be among the population groups with greater digital health literacy needs than urban residents [19,21]. It is also noted that there were some demographic groups that were not well represented in the sample when compared with that of residents of the Ballarat Goldfields region; this included a lower representation of younger people and those with lower education. The impact of this discrepancy is that the findings may not be generalizable to the general adult population in the region. However, it is important to note that this study sought to understand people’s experience with digital health services. Given that people in middle to late adulthood have the highest burden of chronic health conditions and tend to have multimorbidity, this population group may have more to gain from the engagement and use of web-based PHR.

    Groups experiencing vulnerabilities who are most at risk of digital inequities were also not well represented. Only 1.8% (18/998) of the respondents identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and only 0.8% (8/998) spoke a language other than English at home. Although the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders was similar to the population of the Ballarat Goldfields region (Multimedia Appendix 2), the proportion of people who spoke a language other than English at home was lower than that in the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census (39,743/576,802, 6.9%) [76]. Future studies should focus on these 2 groups to better understand their needs and barriers to digital health.

    Another limitation is that the sample included only adults who had a landline telephone or mobile phone number registered to a postcode in the Ballarat Goldfields region. Consequently, individuals who did not have access to a phone, who lived in the region but had a phone registered to a different postcode, or who had an unlisted number were not sampled. Such individuals may have had different experiences with health technologies and services than the study sample, and their experiences were not captured in the data. Furthermore, CATI as an administration mode can lead to some cognitive burden and recall bias, which may in turn affect the ways in which people respond [77]. However, the use of a telephone survey is a cost-effective way to undertake a large population survey in a short period.

    Conclusions

    This study provides insights into the predictors of the use of a national web-based PHR, MyHR, in Australia, and advances the understanding of the mechanism behind the use of web-based PHRs. These findings suggest that actions to improve the uptake and use of web-based PHRs need to look beyond improving individual digital skills. Of equal importance are initiatives to provide access to digital technologies, develop responsive digital services, provide a better understanding of the benefits of using web-based PHRs, and establish health care and social support networks. Therefore, a holistic approach is essential for enhancing the rate of web-based PHR engagement and use. This study also identified subgroups that are likely to be nonusers of web-based PHRs; targeted solutions need to be put in place to ensure that a web-based PHR can realize its full potential to help reduce health inequities.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of members of the community residing in the Western Victoria Primary Health Network (WVPHN) region who participated in this research. The authors also thank the staff of WVPHN for sharing their perspectives and experiences throughout the project. We acknowledge and thank the staff and management of Strahan Research Pty Ltd for the timeliness and quality of completion of the CATI process. This project was funded by WVPHN through a grant from the Australian Digital Health Agency. RHO received funds from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Principal Research Fellowship APP1155125.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    eHealth Literacy Questionnaire and Health Literacy Questionnaire scales and definitions.

    DOCX File , 22 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Comparison of study participants and the population of the Ballarat Goldfields region of the Western Victoria Primary Health Network.

    DOCX File , 15 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Logistic regression predicting likelihood of My Health Record awareness.

    DOCX File , 90 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Logistic regression predicting likelihood of My Health Record engagement.

    DOCX File , 88 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Logistic regression predicting likelihood of My Health Record use or intention to use.

    DOCX File , 84 KB
    1. Alsahafi AY, Gay BV. An overview of electronic personal health records. Health Policy Technol 2018 Dec;7(4):427-432. [CrossRef]
    2. Pagliari C, Detmer D, Singleton P. Potential of electronic personal health records. BMJ 2007 Aug 18;335(7615):330-333 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Hilton JF, Barkoff L, Chang O, Halperin L, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U, et al. A cross-sectional study of barriers to personal health record use among patients attending a safety-net clinic. PLoS One 2012 Feb 20;7(2):e31888 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Dutta B, Peng M, Sun S. Modeling the adoption of personal health record (PHR) among individual: the effect of health-care technology self-efficacy and gender concern. Libyan J Med 2018 Dec 24;13(1):1500349 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Global Diffusion of EHealth: Making Universal Health Coverage Achievable Report of the Third Global Survey on EHealth. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2017.
    6. Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2025. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2021.
    7. What can My Health Record data be used for? Australian Digital Health Agency.   URL: https:/​/www.​myhealthrecord.gov.au/​for-you-your-family/​howtos/​choose-how-your-data-is-used-for-research [accessed 2022-06-03]
    8. Lehnbom EC, Brien JE, McLachlan AJ. Knowledge and attitudes regarding the personally controlled electronic health record: an Australian national survey. Intern Med J 2014 Apr;44(4):406-409. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. My Health Record a potential life saver for Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Australian Digital Health Agency.   URL: https:/​/www.​myhealthrecord.gov.au/​news-and-media/​media-releases/​life-saver-for-culturally-linguistically-diverse-backgrounds [accessed 2020-06-06]
    10. Walsh L, Hemsley B, Allan M, Adams N, Balandin S, Georgiou A, et al. The e-health literacy demands of Australia's my health record: a heuristic evaluation of usability. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2017;14(Fall):1f [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    11. My Health Record opt out date announced. Australian Government Department of Health.   URL: https:/​/www.​myhealthrecord.gov.au/​news-and-media/​media-releases/​my-health-record-opt-out-date-announced [accessed 2020-06-03]
    12. Gaylin DS, Moiduddin A, Mohamoud S, Lundeen K, Kelly JA. Public attitudes about health information technology, and its relationship to health care quality, costs, and privacy. Health Serv Res 2011 Jun;46(3):920-938 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. The devil’s in the detail: final report of the independent evaluation of the Summary Care Record and Healthspace programmes. NHS Networks.   URL: https:/​/www.​networks.nhs.uk/​news/​the-devil2019s-in-the-detail-final-report-of-the-independent-evaluation-of-the-summary-care-record-and-healthspace-programmes [accessed 2021-07-16]
    14. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 2006 Jun 16;8(2):e9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Kayser L, Kushniruk A, Osborne RH, Norgaard O, Turner P. Enhancing the effectiveness of consumer-focused health information technology systems through eHealth literacy: a framework for understanding users' needs. JMIR Hum Factors 2015 May 20;2(1):e9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Monkman H, Kushniruk A. eHealth literacy issues, constructs, models, and methods for health information technology design and evaluation. Knowl Manag E Learn 2015;7(4):541-549. [CrossRef]
    17. Gibbons MC, Casale CR. Reducing disparities in health care quality: the role of health IT in underresourced settings. Med Care Res Rev 2010 Oct;67(5 Suppl):155S-1562. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Healthcare disparities and the role of personal health records. The American Health Information Management Association.   URL: https://library.ahima.org/doc?oid=91677#.YtL8GHZBzIU [accessed 2021-04-10]
    19. Bodie GD, Dutta MJ. Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health disparities, and the digital divide. Health Mark Q 2008;25(1-2):175-203. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Litt E. Measuring users’ internet skills: a review of past assessments and a look toward the future. New Media Soc 2013 May 24;15(4):612-630. [CrossRef]
    21. Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D. C. National Telecommunications and Information Administration.   URL: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/FTTN.pdf [accessed 2021-04-10]
    22. Wei K, Teo H, Chan HC, Tan BC. Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Inform Syst Res 2011 Mar;22(1):170-187. [CrossRef]
    23. Grossman LV, Masterson Creber RM, Benda NC, Wright D, Vawdrey DK, Ancker JS. Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019 Aug 01;26(8-9):855-870 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Knapp C, Madden V, Wang H, Sloyer P, Shenkman E. Internet use and eHealth literacy of low-income parents whose children have special health care needs. J Med Internet Res 2011 Sep 29;13(3):e75 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Lustria ML, Smith SA, Hinnant CC. Exploring digital divides: an examination of eHealth technology use in health information seeking, communication and personal health information management in the USA. Health Informatics J 2011 Sep;17(3):224-243 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA, Peters O. Rethinking internet skills: the contribution of gender, age, education, internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related internet skills. Poetics 2011 Apr;39(2):125-144. [CrossRef]
    27. Neter E, Brainin E. eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res 2012 Jan 27;14(1):e19 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Gerber DE, Laccetti AL, Chen B, Yan J, Cai J, Gates S, et al. Predictors and intensity of online access to electronic medical records among patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract 2014 Sep;10(5):e307-e312 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Greenberg AJ, Falisi AL, Finney Rutten LJ, Chou WS, Patel V, Moser RP, et al. Access to electronic personal health records among patients with multiple chronic conditions: a secondary data analysis. J Med Internet Res 2017 Jun 02;19(6):e188 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Kim E, Stolyar A, Lober WB, Herbaugh AL, Shinstrom SE, Zierler BK, et al. Challenges to using an electronic personal health record by a low-income elderly population. J Med Internet Res 2009 Oct 27;11(4):e44 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Kim S, Abner E. Predictors affecting personal health information management skills. Inform Health Soc Care 2016;41(3):211-229 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Strekalova YA. Electronic health record use among cancer patients: insights from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Health Informatics J 2019 Mar 23;25(1):83-90 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Noblin AM, Wan TT, Fottler M. The impact of health literacy on a patient's decision to adopt a personal health record. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2012;9:1-13 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    34. McPhee C, Batterham R, Hawkins M, Gearon E, Hanna L, Osborne R. eHealth literacy study - Ballarat: Technical Report. Deakin University. 2019.   URL: https://www.ausdoc.com.au/sites/default/files/e-health-literacy-study_2019.pdf [accessed 2021-03-28]
    35. National, state and territory population. Australian Bureau of Statistics.   URL: https:/​/www.​abs.gov.au/​statistics/​people/​population/​national-state-and-territory-population/​latest-release [accessed 2022-03-03]
    36. Final Report My Health Record system. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018.
    37. Legislation and governance. Australian Digital Health Agency.   URL: https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/about/legislation-and-governance [accessed 2021-03-12]
    38. Batterham RW, Buchbinder R, Beauchamp A, Dodson S, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. The OPtimising HEalth LIterAcy (Ophelia) process: study protocol for using health literacy profiling and community engagement to create and implement health reform. BMC Public Health 2014 Jul 07;14:694 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016. Australian Bureau of Statistics.   URL: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/2033.0.55.0012016?OpenDocument [accessed 2018-09-28]
    40. Kayser L, Karnoe A, Furstrand D, Batterham R, Christensen KB, Elsworth G, et al. A multidimensional tool based on the ehealth literacy framework: development and initial validity testing of the eHealth literacy questionnaire (eHLQ). J Med Internet Res 2018 Feb 12;20(2):e36 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Public Health 2013 Jul 16;13:658 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Buchbinder R, Batterham R, Elsworth G, Dionne CE, Irvin E, Osborne RH. A validity-driven approach to the understanding of the personal and societal burden of low back pain: development of a conceptual and measurement model. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13(5):R152 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Elsworth GR, Beauchamp A, Osborne RH. Measuring health literacy in community agencies: a Bayesian study of the factor structure and measurement invariance of the health literacy questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Health Serv Res 2016 Sep 22;16(1):508 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Debussche X, Lenclume V, Balcou-Debussche M, Alakian D, Sokolowsky C, Ballet D, et al. Characterisation of health literacy strengths and weaknesses among people at metabolic and cardiovascular risk: validity testing of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. SAGE Open Med 2018;6:2050312118801250 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Kolarcik P, Cepova E, Madarasova Geckova A, Elsworth GR, Batterham RW, Osborne RH. Structural properties and psychometric improvements of the Health Literacy Questionnaire in a Slovak population. Int J Public Health 2017 Jun 3;62(5):591-604. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Maindal HT, Kayser L, Norgaard O, Bo A, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ): robust nine-dimension Danish language confirmatory factor model. Springerplus 2016;5(1):1232 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Morris RL, Soh S, Hill KD, Buchbinder R, Lowthian JA, Redfern J, et al. Measurement properties of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) among older adults who present to the emergency department after a fall: a Rasch analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2017 Aug 29;17(1):605 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Nolte S, Osborne RH, Dwinger S, Elsworth GR, Conrad ML, Rose M, et al. German translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). PLoS One 2017;12(2):e0172340 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity. Qual Life Res 2018 Jul;27(7):1695-1710 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Cheng C, Elsworth G, Osborne RH. Validity evidence based on relations to other variables of the eHealth literacy questionnaire (eHLQ): Bayesian approach to test for known-groups validity. J Med Internet Res 2021 Oct 14;23(10):e30243 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Cheng C, Elsworth G, Osborne R. Validity evidence of the eHealth literacy questionnaire (eHLQ) part 2: mixed methods approach to evaluate test content, response process, and internal structure in the Australian community health setting. J Med Internet Res 2022 Mar 08;24(3):e32777 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Hawkins M, Gill SD, Batterham R, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) at the patient-clinician interface: a qualitative study of what patients and clinicians mean by their HLQ scores. BMC Health Serv Res 2017 Apr 27;17(1):309 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Goodwin B, March S, Zajdlewicz L, Osborne R, Dunn J, Chambers S. Health literacy and the health status of men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2018 Oct;27(10):2374-2381 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Budhathoki SS, Hawkins M, Elsworth G, Fahey MT, Thapa J, Karki S, et al. Use of the English health literacy questionnaire (HLQ) with health science university students in Nepal: a validity testing study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 Mar 09;19(6):3241 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Wahl AK, Hermansen Å, Osborne RH, Larsen MH. A validation study of the Norwegian version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire: a robust nine-dimension factor model. Scand J Public Health 2021 Jun;49(4):471-478 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Boateng MA, Agyei-Baffour P, Angel S, Enemark U. Translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Ghanaian language (Akan; Asante Twi) version of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. BMC Health Serv Res 2020 Nov 23;20(1):1064 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Rademakers J, Waverijn G, Rijken M, Osborne R, Heijmans M. Towards a comprehensive, person-centred assessment of health literacy: translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric test of the Dutch Health Literacy Questionnaire. BMC Public Health 2020 Dec 02;20(1):1850 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017.
    59. Primary health networks. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.   URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/PHN-Demographic_Data [accessed 2019-01-08]
    60. McCauley D. Australians shun My Health Record with only 9 per cent ever logging in. The Sydney Morning Herald.   URL: https:/​/www.​smh.com.au/​politics/​federal/​australians-shun-my-health-record-with-only-9-per-cent-ever-logging-in-20191220-p53lz0.​html [accessed 2021-04-10]
    61. Lupton D. 'I'd like to think you could trust the government, but I don't really think we can': Australian women's attitudes to and experiences of My Health Record. Digit Health 2019 Apr 29;5:2055207619847017 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Statistics and Insights OCTOBER 2021. My Health Record.   URL: https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/mhr-stats-october.pdf [accessed 2021-12-11]
    63. Pourrazavi S, Kouzekanani K, Bazargan-Hejazi S, Shaghaghi A, Hashemiparast M, Fathifar Z, et al. Theory-based E-health literacy interventions in older adults: a systematic review. Arch Public Health 2020 Aug 10;78(1):72 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Walsh L, Hemsley B, Allan M, Dahm MR, Balandin S, Georgiou A, et al. Assessing the information quality and usability of within a health literacy framework: what's changed since 2016? Health Inf Manag 2021;50(1-2):13-25 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Goodyear-Smith F, Jackson C, Greenhalgh T. Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics 2015 Nov 16;16:78 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. O'Hara J, McPhee C, Dodson S, Cooper A, Wildey C, Hawkins M, et al. Barriers to breast cancer screening among diverse cultural groups in Melbourne, Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018 Aug 07;15(8):1677 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Beauchamp A, Mohebbi M, Cooper A, Pridmore V, Livingston P, Scanlon M, et al. The impact of translated reminder letters and phone calls on mammography screening booking rates: two randomised controlled trials. PLoS One 2020;15(1):e0226610 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Beauchamp A, Batterham RW, Dodson S, Astbury B, Elsworth GR, McPhee C, et al. Systematic development and implementation of interventions to OPtimise Health Literacy and Access (Ophelia). BMC Public Health 2017 Mar 03;17(1):230 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Goeman D, Conway S, Norman R, Morley J, Weerasuriya R, Osborne RH, et al. Optimising health literacy and access of service provision to community dwelling older people with diabetes receiving home nursing support. J Diabetes Res 2016;2016:2483263 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Aaby A, Simonsen CB, Ryom K, Maindal HT. Improving organizational health literacy responsiveness in cardiac rehabilitation using a co-design methodology: results from the heart skills study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 Feb 05;17(3):1015 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Bakker M, Putrik P, Aaby A, Debussche X, Morrissey J, Råheim BC. Acting together – WHO National Health Literacy Demonstration Projects (‎NHLDPs)‎ address health literacy needs in the European Region. Public Health Panorama 2019;5(2-3) [FREE Full text]
    72. Cheng C, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Co-designing eHealth and Equity Solutions: application of the Ophelia (Optimizing Health Literacy and Access) Process. Front Public Health 2020;8:604401 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Anwar WA, Mostafa NS, Hakim SA, Sos DG, Cheng C, Osborne RH. Health literacy co-design in a low resource setting: harnessing local wisdom to inform interventions across fishing villages in egypt to improve health and equity. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021 Apr 24;18(9):4518 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. My Health opt-outs jump to 2.5 million. Special Broadcasting Service Australia.   URL: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/my-health-opt-outs-jump-to-2-5-million/ldfuy3act [accessed 2021-08-23]
    75. Statistics and Insights. The Australian Digital Health Agency.   URL: https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/sites/default/files/mhr_stats_marchnovember2019.pdf?v=1576471841 [accessed 2021-08-23]
    76. Western Victoria Primary Health Network Needs Assessment 2017. Western Victoria Primary Health Network.   URL: https://westvicphn.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/WVPHN_Needs_Assessment_2017_Core.pdf [accessed 2022-03-07]
    77. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005 Sep;27(3):281-291. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    CATI: computer-assisted telephone interview
    eHLQ: eHealth Literacy Questionnaire
    HLQ: Health Literacy Questionnaire
    MyHR: My Health Record
    Ophelia: Optimizing Health Literacy and Access
    OR: odds ratio
    PHR: personal health record
    WVPHN: Western Victoria Primary Health Network

    Edited by T Leung; submitted 17.12.21; peer-reviewed by T Greenhalgh, H Fang, A Barker; comments to author 15.02.22; revised version received 16.05.22; accepted 20.06.22; published 16.09.22

    Copyright

    ©Christina Cheng, Emma Gearon, Melanie Hawkins, Crystal McPhee, Lisa Hanna, Roy Batterham, Richard H Osborne. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 16.09.2022.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.