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

Digital Health Reviews (1186) eHealth Literacy / Digital Literacy (356) Behavior Change (653)

Published on in Vol 25 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/40778, first published .
The Relation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The Relation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The Relation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Authors of this article:

Keonhee Kim1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Sangyoon Shin1 Author Orcid Image ;   Seungyeon Kim3 Author Orcid Image ;   Euni Lee1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (32) Tweetations (16) Metrics

    Review

    1Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    2Department of Pharmacy, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea

    3College of Pharmacy, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Euni Lee, PharmD, PhD

    Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences

    College of Pharmacy

    Seoul National University

    1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu

    Seoul, 08826

    Republic of Korea

    Phone: 82 27408588

    Email: eunilee@snu.ac.kr


    Background: With widespread use of the internet and mobile devices, many people have gained improved access to health-related information online for health promotion and disease management. As the health information acquired online can affect health-related behaviors, health care providers need to take into account how each individual’s online health literacy (eHealth literacy) can affect health-related behaviors.

    Objective: To determine whether an individual’s level of eHealth literacy affects actual health-related behaviors, the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was identified in an integrated manner through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

    Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and Research Information Sharing Service databases were systematically searched for studies published up to March 19, 2021, which suggested the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. Studies were eligible if they were conducted with the general population, presented eHealth literacy according to validated tools, used no specific control condition, and measured health-related behaviors as the outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on the studies that could be quantitatively synthesized using a random effect model. A pooled correlation coefficient was generated by integrating the correlation coefficients, and the risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

    Results: Among 1922 eHealth literacy–related papers, 29 studies suggesting an association between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors were included. All retrieved studies were cross-sectional studies, and most of them used the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) as a measurement tool for eHealth literacy. Of the 29 studies, 22 presented positive associations between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. The meta-analysis was performed on 14 studies that presented the correlation coefficient for the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors. When the meta-analysis was conducted by age, morbidity status, and type of health-related behavior, the pooled correlation coefficients were 0.37 (95% CI 0.29-0.44) for older adults (aged ≥65 years), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.39) for individuals with diseases, and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27-0.41) for health-promoting behavior. The overall estimate of the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was 0.31 (95% CI 0.25-0.34), which indicated a moderate correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors.

    Conclusions: Our results of a positive correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors indicate that eHealth literacy can be a mediator in the process by which health-related information leads to changes in health-related behaviors. Larger-scale studies with stronger validity are needed to evaluate the detailed relationship between the proficiency level of eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors for health promotion in the future.

    J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e40778

    doi:10.2196/40778

    Keywords

    eHealth literacy; digital health literacy; online health information; health-related behaviors; health-promoting behavior; meta-analysis 


    Background

    The development of digital media and communication technology has increased access to information, and a growing proportion of health-related information is being gained through the internet. A survey conducted in the United States reported that 59% of survey participants had experience in retrieving health information online and 35% had experience in self-diagnosing their health status using online health information [1]. The internet offers the advantage of quick and easy access to a vast amount of up-to-date information and allows communication with health care experts using diverse media platforms such as social networking websites, messengers, and video streaming services [2]. The internet’s capacity goes beyond the realm of merely acquiring health-related information, as bidirectional or multidirectional information sharing is also possible [3].

    Furthermore, owing to the widespread penetration of the internet and mobile devices, numerous health care professionals increasingly use web-based or online materials to provide information to patients [4]. Previous studies have demonstrated that digital information can be implemented and used positively for public health projects, such as smoking cessation, weight control, and alcohol addiction management [5-7]. Although access to a wide range of information has improved with the internet, information on the internet comes from a variety of providers and sources that are difficult to control, which can lead to problems with quality and the risk of circulating biased content according to the interests and purposes involved [8].

    Therefore, moving forward from the concept of traditional health literacy, the ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from an electronic source has emerged as eHealth literacy [9,10]. Health literacy, a concept preceding eHealth literacy, is shown to be closely associated with health-related factors, such as health behavior, disease management, and quality of life, in various studies [11-13]. Likewise, numerous studies on eHealth literacy, including the development of measurement tools, measurement of individuals’ eHealth literacy, and identification of factors contributing to eHealth literacy, have been steadily conducted [14-17]. However, not much is known about the association between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors, especially whether eHealth literacy can influence changes in the actual behavior. We raised the question of whether eHealth literacy might be the key mediator from obtaining online health information to changing actual health-related behaviors. Since extensive health information is available online and the acquisition of the information could influence individuals’ health-related behaviors, such as disease management, medication adherence, and seeking health care services [18], a comprehensive review of the influence of eHealth literacy on actual health-related behaviors affected by online health-related information is needed.

    Objectives

    Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the effect of eHealth literacy on the types of health-related behaviors and to present the pooled quantitative relationship between them.


    Definitions of eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors

    The theoretical definition of eHealth literacy refers to the ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem [10]. In our study, eHealth literacy was operationally defined as the total eHealth literacy score measured with a validated measurement tool, such as the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) developed by Norman and Skinner [19].

    Health-related behaviors were defined as “behavioral patterns, actions, and habits that relate to health maintenance, to health restoration, and to health improvement” and included the use of health care services, such as vaccinations and health checkups, compliance with medical therapy, such as treatment diet or medication, and self-directed health behaviors related to diet, exercise, smoking, drinking, etc [20]. In this study, health-related behaviors were operationally defined and subsequently analyzed in the following 3 categories: health-promoting behavior, health-supporting behavior, and disease management behavior (Table 1). Health-promoting behavior consisted of the following 6 dimensions: nutrition, physical activity, health responsibility, stress management, interpersonal relations, and self-realization. It was measured with tools such as Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) II [21]. Health-supporting behavior was defined as a health-related behavior that was only a part of the dimension of health-promoting behavior or was not included in health-promoting behavior. It was measured by the absence or presence of each experience, or the total score obtained using measurement tools of health behaviors such as Healthy Lifestyle and Personal Control Questionnaire [22]. Lastly, disease management behavior included any activity performed to manage a specific disease and was quantified by measurement tools according to disease-specific behavioral characteristics such as the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index [23].

    Table 1. Operational classification and definitions of health-related behaviors.
    Health-related behaviorOperational definition
    Health-promoting behaviorA holistic behavioral pattern that includes health responsibility, nutrition, physical activity, stress management, interpersonal relations, and self-realization [24]
    Health-supporting behaviorLifestyle habits and disease prevention behaviors for maintaining health [25], which are only a part of the dimension of health-promoting behavior or are not included in health-promoting behavior
    Disease management behaviorAll activities performed to manage a specific disease

    Literature Search

    We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PICO-SD (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design) framework and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1) [26]. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, KoreaMed, and Research Information Sharing Service to collect research papers published until March 19, 2021. The search keywords combined synonyms of eHealth with synonyms of literacy for a more comprehensive search. Additional manual searches to find relevant studies were also performed by reviewing the bibliographies from the retrieved papers. The detailed search strategy is presented in Multimedia Appendix 2.

    Eligible Criteria and Study Selection

    For the systematic review, searched studies were selected according to the following inclusion criteria:

    1. Population: Study participants were from the general population and were not health care professionals or students majoring in health care. Participants were not excluded based on their age, race, or morbidity status.
    2. Intervention: Studies that reported levels of eHealth literacy measured by validated quantification tools, such as the eHEALS, were included.
    3. Comparator: There was no specific comparator.
    4. Outcomes: The outcomes of the included studies had to suggest objectively measured health-related behaviors. The behaviors could be evaluated individually or could be integrated.
    5. Study design: Studies were selected regardless of their study design, except for qualitative studies.

    Studies were excluded if they were (1) not measuring eHealth literacy or not using validated eHealth literacy measurement tools; (2) qualitative studies or not original research papers; (3) not written in either English or Korean; or (4) not available in full text.

    The literature search and selection process was performed independently by 2 reviewers (KK and SS). Any discordance among the reviewers during the process of literature selection was resolved through mutual agreement or by involving a third researcher (SK) in a discussion. If two or more studies were performed on the same set of participants, the studies were considered duplicates, and only 1 comprehensive study was selected for further analysis.

    Data Extraction and Risk of Bias Assessment

    The following data were extracted from the selected literature using a standardized form by 2 reviewers (KK and SS): the characteristics of the studies (first author, publication year, country or location, study design, participants, and sample size); types of eHealth literacy scales; mean eHealth literacy score; types of health-related behaviors whose correlations with eHealth literacy were verified; methods of measuring health-related behaviors; statistical analysis methods; types of outcome indicators; and values of outcome indicators. Any inconsistency or ambiguity was resolved by discussion with other reviewers (SK and EL).

    The risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). While the NOS was developed for assessing the risk of bias in nonrandomized observational studies [27], our study used the modified NOS [28] that was developed for cross-sectional studies. The NOS uses a star system to assess the risk of bias in studies, whereby a lower score (ie, number of stars) is associated with a higher risk of bias: high risk, 0-3 stars; unclear risk, 4-6 stars; and low risk, 7-9 stars. Studies evaluated to have a high risk of bias were excluded from the meta-analysis.

    Qualitative and Quantitative Synthesis of the Results

    For a qualitative analysis of the results, study country, study population, eHealth literacy measurement tools, types of health-related behaviors and measurement tools, and the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors were presented descriptively. The characteristics of the study population were described by age and morbidity status. The specific contents of health-related behaviors were summarized, and they were also classified into the following 3 categories: health-promoting behavior, health-supporting behavior, and disease management behavior. The relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was evaluated by whether the effect of eHealth literacy was positive or negative.

    For evaluating the association between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors by a quantitative method, the pooled correlation coefficient was estimated by Fisher z-transformation and construction of the inverse transformation [29]. We used the correlation coefficients of individual studies and treated each result as a separate study when multiple subgroup results were reported in 1 study. The pooled correlation coefficient presented with a 95% CI was tested by performing hypothesis testing to determine whether the correlation was statistically significant. Interpretation of the pooled correlation coefficient was conducted according to Cohen criteria [30]. Cochran Q-statistics and I2-statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity within the studies included in the meta-analysis, and we applied either the fixed-effects model or random-effects model, depending on the significance of heterogeneity (P<.10 and I2≥50%) [29]. To test the validity of the study results, publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger regression, and in case of suspected publication bias, the severity of bias was tested using the trim-and-fill method to estimate the degree to which the publication bias would affect the validity of the study results.

    The total effect size (ie, pooled correlation coefficient) was derived from each group of studies divided by the participants’ mean age, morbidity status, and types of health-related behaviors, and from all studies that could be quantitatively synthesized. Through this, we tried to evaluate changes in the effect size according to detailed characteristics. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis, version 2 software (Biostat).


    Study Selection

    Of 1922 identified nonduplicate studies, 1481 studies were excluded after a review of the studies’ titles and abstracts. The remaining 441 studies were assessed for eligibility through full-text review. Finally, 29 studies, which presented the association between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors, were selected for qualitative analysis. Out of these, only 14 studies that were quantitatively synthesizable for analysis were included in the meta-analysis. The detailed study selection process with the reasons for exclusion during screening steps is shown in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart of the study selection process.

    Characteristics of the Included Studies

    The overall characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 2 [31-59]. Among the 29 studies, most were published in South Korea (n=9), followed by Taiwan (n=5), the United States (n=4), China (n=3), Japan (n=3), Turkey (n=2), Germany/Austria (n=1), Iran (n=1), and Pakistan (n=1), showing that most of the studies were conducted in Asia. All retrieved studies were cross-sectional studies using questionnaires. The age groups of the study participants varied, and there were teenagers [31,32], college students [33-40], and older adults [41-46]. While most studies were conducted on the general population regardless of disease status, 6 studies [41,47-51] were conducted on patients with specific diseases, including heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and HIV infection.

    In 25 out of the 29 studies, the original eHEALS (comprising an 8-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale) or its language or culturally adapted versions for respective countries were used. In the studies analyzed, versions of the eHEALS adapted into Korean, Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, and Persian that were undergoing a reliability test were used. Among the 4 studies that used measurement tools other than the eHEALS, 3 studies [33,39,40] used the 12-item eHealth Literacy Scale (eHLS) and 1 study [35] used a 51-item eHealth Literacy Scale developed and validated in Korean.

    Health-related behaviors considered to be correlated with eHealth literacy included health-promoting behavior, health-supporting behavior, and disease management behavior. HPLP Ⅱ was the most frequently used tool for measuring health-promoting behavior. The Short-form HPLP, Health-Promoting Lifestyle Scale, and Adolescent Health Promotion Scale were used alongside. Health-supporting behaviors included a regular and balanced diet, appropriate physical activity, sufficient sleep, abstinence, smoking cessation, vaccination, safe sex life, prevention of infectious diseases, cancer screening experience, and positive thinking. These behaviors were comprehensively assessed using various tools, including the Health-related Behavior Scale, Healthy Lifestyle and Personal Control Questionnaire, and Dietary Behaviors Scale, as well as self-developed items. Disease management behaviors included heart failure self-management, diabetes self-management, chronic disease self-management, and medication adherence. Disease management behaviors were measured using validated tools specific to each disease (Table 2).

    Table 2. Characteristics of the included studies.
    Author (year)CountryPopulation (sample n)eHLa measurement toolHealth-related behaviors measurement toolTypes of health-related behaviorsRisk of bias
    An et al (2021) [52]United StatesAdults aged over 18 years (n=1074)Coronavirus-related eHEALSb7 self-reported itemsInfection prevention behaviors6
    Blackstock et al (2016) [47]United StatesHIV-infected adult women (n=63)eHEALSHIV Risk-Taking Behaviour Scale and Addiction Severity IndexHigh-risk sexual and drug use behaviors6
    Britt et al (2017) [34]United StatesCollege students (n=420)eHEALSQuestions for the 8 health areas identified from the American College Health AssociationDiet, exercise, sleep, harmful substances, vaccination, safe sex practices, social relationship, and overall health3
    Cho and Ha (2019) [48]KoreaAdult outpatients with hypertension (n=156)Korean version of eHEALSSelf-care behaviors measurement toolDiet, weight control, stress management, alcohol and tobacco use, physical activity, and medication7
    Choi (2020) [42]KoreaOlder adults aged over 65 years (n=198)Korean version of eHEALSAdapted HPLPc ⅡHealth responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual development, interpersonal support, and stress management6
    Chuang et al (2019) [49]TaiwanAdults with heart failure (n=141)Chinese version of eHEALS22-item instrument Self-Care of Heart Failure Index version 6.2Self-care maintenance, management, and confidence in heart failure6
    Cui et al (2021) [43]ChinaOlder adults aged over 60 years (n=1201)Chinese version of eHEALSHPLPSelf-actualization, health responsibility, exercise, nutrition, interpersonal support, and stress management8
    Guo et al (2021) [50]TaiwanDiabetes mellitus outpatients aged 20 to 65 years (n=249)eHEALS36-item Diabetes Self-care Behavior questionnaireSelf-care activities related to diabetes mellitus4
    Gürkan and Ayar (2020) [31]TurkeyHigh school students (n=219)Turkish version of eHEALSAdolescent Health Promotion ScaleDiet, life appreciation, social support, exercise, stress management, and health responsibility6
    Hsu et al (2014) [33]TaiwanCollege students (n=525)eHLSdSelf-developed 12-item Health Behavior ScaleDiet, exercise, and sleep behaviors8
    Hwang and Kang (2019) [35]KoreaCollege students (n=242)eHL scale composed of functional, communicative, and critical eHLAdapted HPLP ⅡHealth responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual development, interpersonal support, and stress management8
    Kim and Kim (2020) [51]KoreaCancer patients aged 19 to 64 years (n=76)Adapted eHEALSAdapted HPLP ⅡHealth responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual development, interpersonal support, and stress management6
    Kim and Son (2017) [53]KoreaYoung adults aged 18 to 39 years (n=230)Korean version of eHEALS5-item validated Health-Related Behaviors ScaleBehaviors to prevent disease and promote health9
    Korkmaz Aslan et al (2021) [32]TurkeyStudents aged 14 to 19 years (n=409)Turkish version of eHEALSAdolescent Health Promotion ScaleDiet, life appreciation, social support, exercise, stress management, and health responsibility8
    Lee et al (2017) [54]KoreaAdults aged 20 to 59 years (n=195)Adapted eHEALSAdapted HPLP ⅡHealth responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual development, interpersonal support, and stress management7
    Li et al (2021) [44]ChinaOlder adults aged over 60 years (n=2300)Chinese version of eHEALSHPLPSelf-actualization, health responsibility, exercise, nutrition, interpersonal support, and stress management8
    Li and Liu (2020) [55]ChinaInternet users aged 20 to 60 years (n=802)Chinese version of eHEALSSelf-developed 10-item protective behaviors measurement scaleCOVID-19 prevention behaviors7
    Lin et al (2020) [41]IranOlder adults aged over 65 years with heart failure (n=468)Persian version of eHEALS5-item self-reported Medication Adherence Report ScaleMedication adherence7
    Mitsutake et al (2012) [56]JapanAdult internet users aged 20 to 59 years (n=2970)Japanese version of eHEALSA question with “Yes” or “No” answerColorectal cancer screening test7
    Mitsutake et al (2016) [57]JapanInternet users aged 20 to 59 years (n=2115)Japanese version of eHEALSSelf-developed questionsCigarette smoking, physical exercise, alcohol consumption, sleeping hours, and dietary habits5
    Nam and Jung (2020) [36]KoreaKorean and Chinese university students (n=240)Adapted eHEALS15-item Adapted Health Behavior ScaleDiet, exercise, and sleep behaviors4
    Park et al (2014) [58]United StatesAdults aged over 18 years who had experience using the internet (n=108)eHEALSA question with “Yes” or “No” answerBreast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening tests3
    Rabenbauer and Mevenkamp (2021) [59]Germany and AustriaFacebook users aged over 18 years (n=224)eHEALSHealthy lifestyle and personal control questionnaireDiet, daily time management, physical exercise, social support, and positive thinking5
    Ryu (2019) [45]KoreaOlder adults aged over 65 years (n=99)Korean version of eHEALSA tool for measuring the health behavior of elderly peopleDiet, exercise, restriction of cigarette smoking or alcohol use, stress management, and disease prevention7
    Song and Shin (2020) [46]KoreaOlder adults aged over 65 years using the internet (n=102)Korean version of eHEALSAdapted HPLP ⅡHealth responsibility, physical activity, nutrition, spiritual development, interpersonal support, and stress management8
    Tariq et al (2020) [37]PakistanCollege students (n=505)eHEALSSelf-developed and validated questions on health behaviorsPhysical activity and use of dietary supplements4
    Tsukahara S et al (2020) [38]JapanUniversity students (n=3183)Japanese version of eHEALSSelf-developed questionsExercise, breakfast, smoking, alcohol consumption, and hours of sleep6
    Yang et al (2017) [39]TaiwanCollege students (n=556)eHLSHealth-Promoting Lifestyle ScaleSelf-actualization, health responsibility, interpersonal support, exercise, nutrition, and stress management8
    Yang et al (2019) [40]TaiwanCollege students (n=813)eHLS14-item Dietary Behaviors ScaleDietary habits7

    aeHL: eHealth literacy.

    beHEALS: eHealth Literacy Scale.

    cHPLP: Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile.

    deHLS: 12-item eHealth Literacy Scale.

    Risk of Bias Assessment

    The risk of bias assessment revealed that 15 studies had a low risk of bias and 12 studies had an unclear risk of bias (Table 2). Two studies [34,58] were found to have a high risk of bias with a NOS score of 3, and both studies were confirmed to have selection biases, such as representativeness of the study population, calculation of the sample size, and proportion of nonresponders. The high risk of bias in the 2 studies was also attributed to the failure to control confounding variables and to use validated tools for measuring health-related behaviors (Multimedia Appendix 3).

    Qualitative Analysis of eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors

    Among the 29 included studies, 6 showed that not all health-related behaviors were significantly associated with eHealth literacy [36-38,48,51,58] and 1 demonstrated a negative effect of eHealth literacy on health-related behaviors [47]. Significant associations were not found between the eHEALS score and disease management behaviors in hypertension patients [48], and between the eHEALS score and health-promoting behaviors or health-supporting behaviors in cancer patients [51,58] or college students [36,37]. In a study with Japanese university students [38], the eHEALS score was positively associated with some behaviors, such as regular exercise and breakfast eating, but was not associated with behaviors related to sleeping, smoking, and drinking. A study with HIV-infected low-income women [47] identified that higher eHealth literacy was significantly associated with HIV transmission risk behaviors. In the remaining 22 out of 29 studies, positive associations were present between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors, that is, individuals with higher eHealth literacy scores were reported to show higher scores in health-promoting behaviors [31,32,35,39,43,44,46,54], regular eating and exercise [33,34,38,40,42,45,57,59], sufficient sleep [33,34,38,57], stress management [42,45], smoking cessation [34,38,45,57], alcohol abstinence [34,38,45,57], compliance with disease-prevention behaviors [45,52,55,56], medication adherence [41], self-care management of heart failure [49], and self-care management for diabetes [50]. The relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors in the included studies is summarized in Multimedia Appendix 4.

    Quantitative Analysis of eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors

    Correlation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors by Population Characteristics and Types of Health-Related Behaviors

    The correlation coefficients between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors in the studies [31, 35, 41-43, 45, 46, 48-51, 54, 55, 59] included in the meta-analysis ranged from 0.14 to 0.45. Among these studies, the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was synthesized by age, morbidity status, and types of health-related behaviors. From the age subgroups, the pooled estimates of correlation coefficients were 0.28 (95% CI 0.22-0.34) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.29-0.44) for studies in which participants’ mean age was <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. While the pooled correlation coefficient of the patient group was estimated at 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.39), that of the nonpatient group was 0.32 (95% CI 0.25-0.39). For the subtypes of health-related behaviors, the highest effect size of the pooled correlation coefficient was shown by health-promoting behavior (0.36, 95% CI 0.27-0.41), and the lowest was shown by disease management behavior (0.24, 95% CI 0.12-0.35) (Table 3).

    Table 3. Correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors by age, morbidity status, and type of health-related behavior.
    CharacteristicStudies, nPooled correlation coefficient, value (95% CI)
    Age


    		<65 years90.28 (0.22-0.34)

    		≥65 years50.37 (0.29-0.44)
    Morbidity status


    		Patients40.28 (0.17-0.39)

    		Nonpatients100.32 (0.25-0.39)
    Type of health-related behavior


    		Health-promoting behavior70.36 (0.27-0.41)

    		Health-supporting behavior30.31 (0.19-0.42)

    		Disease management behavior40.24 (0.12-0.35)
    Overall Estimate of the Correlation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors

    The overall estimate of the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was conducted for all 14 studies available for quantitative analysis. The pooled correlation coefficient was 0.31 (95% CI 0.25-0.34; P<.001), with high heterogeneity (Cochrane Q=51.34; P<.001; I2=72.73%), which indicated a moderate correlation [30] between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors (Figure 2).

    Regarding publication bias, slight asymmetry in visual analysis using a funnel plot was observed (Figure 3), and a weak but statistically significant asymmetry was verified in the Egger regression test (P=.049). In further trim-and-fill analysis, no studies were found to require further transformation to symmetry, and consequently, no changes in the size effect occurred, indicating that the publication bias did not affect the validity of the study results.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Forest plot of the correlation coefficients between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors.
    ‎
    Figure 3. Funnel plot of the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors.

    Prior Work and Principal Findings

    The pursuit of health information can affect various health-related outcomes, such as disease prevention actions, perceived health status, and use of health care medical services [60]. With access to and sharing of an enormous amount of health information through the internet in the general population, the concept of eHealth literacy has been studied as a mediator in the process from online health information acquisition to changing individual health-related behaviors [61-63]. Therefore, health care professionals need to have an in-depth understanding of eHealth literacy and its effects on health-related behaviors. In previous studies, concerns were raised that a lower eHealth literacy level was associated with greater difficulty in accessing and understanding online health information, making it more difficult for affected individuals to manage their chronic diseases and to comply with disease prevention actions such as cancer screening [64,65]. However, eHealth literacy may not necessarily have a positive effect on health behaviors or disease-prevention behaviors. A study by Aharony and Goldman [66] found that the group that hesitated to get vaccinated had a higher frequency and intensity of using online information sources. Since eHealth literacy can have a multifaceted effect on health-related behaviors, a more comprehensive analysis is needed to gain an in-depth understanding of the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors.

    Our meta-analysis showed a moderately positive correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors, and eHealth literacy was found to have a significant effect on health-related behaviors such as health-promoting behavior, health-supporting behavior, and disease management behavior. However, some of the studies, which specifically focused on younger age groups and were not included in the meta-analysis, showed no association or rather a negative association [36,38,47,58]. Therefore, the effect of eHealth literacy on health-related behaviors should be carefully interpreted, and the possibility of other factors mediating the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors should be taken into account. As eHealth literacy alone cannot explain the correlation between online health information acquisition and health-related behaviors, additional research is needed to identify other factors.

    In the results of the quantitative analysis by age, the younger population showed a relatively weak correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors, while the older population showed a moderate correlation. These results might suggest that health-related behaviors in the younger population are influenced by other factors, such as perceived health status and interest in health, going beyond the level of merely obtaining health information [67]. According to previous studies, health literacy among older adults was positively associated with health-related behaviors [68,69], and a computer-based health literacy intervention conducted for elderly people improved participation in their own health care [70]. Considering the results of previous studies and our meta-analysis, eHealth literacy can act as a mediator in changing health-related behaviors using online health information in older adults. Moreover, the older population aged ≥65 years showed a lower level of eHealth literacy than those aged <65 years in previous studies [63,71]. Thus, efforts are needed to promote the level of eHealth literacy in older adults, which is expected to contribute to the promotion of positive health-related behaviors in this population.

    The correlation coefficient between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors was lower in the patient group than in the nonpatient group. Since patients were reported to have more opportunities to obtain health information from various sources, including their doctors or health care providers, when compared with the general population [72], we believe that health-related behaviors showed a relatively low correlation with eHealth literacy in the patient group. The number of patients who find and use health information on the internet is increasing [73-75], and patients’ eHealth literacy can influence their health-related decision-making process and health care provider-patient communication [76,77]. Therefore, the low correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors should not be interpreted as a finding of overlooking the importance of a patient’s eHealth literacy.

    In the quantitative analysis by subtypes of health-related behaviors, a correlation between eHealth literacy and health-promoting behavior was most frequently observed (n=7), and its effect size was also the largest. In contrast, a weak correlation was observed between eHealth literacy and disease management behavior, and the context was similar to that in the patient subgroup. Therefore, improvement in eHealth literacy is expected to greatly contribute to boosting the level of health-promoting behaviors such as eating habits, exercise, stress management, health responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and internal growth. Moreover, it would be beneficial to consider individual eHealth literacy levels when health care professionals provide eHealth services related to health-promoting behaviors.

    Strengths and Limitations

    In this study, eHealth literacy–related studies were systematically reviewed and comprehensively summarized. In addition, a pooled effect size was derived for the correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors using a meta-analysis. This study is significant in that it comprehensively presented the characteristics of the research subjects to be considered for understanding eHealth literacy and provided a resource framework regarding the role of eHealth literacy in health-related behaviors and decision-making. The results of this study suggest that health care providers can manage people’s health behaviors and promote health more effectively by providing eHealth care services that consider individuals’ eHealth literacy. In addition, the moderate correlation between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors supports the importance of eHealth literacy in the process of health care delivery.

    Several limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the sample size of each study included in the meta-analysis was small, and pooled estimates of the correlation coefficient showed high heterogeneity. Due to this limitation, there is a lack of generalizability, and additional research on eHealth literacy and health behaviors is required to support the results. Second, only studies that provided results in the form of correlation coefficients were included in the meta-analysis. Specifically, studies that presented the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors in the form of regression coefficients could not be included in quantitative synthesis to estimate the pooled correlation coefficient. Therefore, the causal relationship between eHealth literacy and health behaviors could not be verified in the study, and further meta-analyses need to be performed on the data to demonstrate the effectiveness of eHealth literacy enhancement programs and the resultant changes in health-related behaviors. Third, the eHealth literacy and health-related behavior measurement items used in the included studies varied, which in turn might have led to biased analysis results. Moreover, the eHealth literacy measurement tools of the included studies, such as eHEALS, were developed in the Web 2.0 era and could not fully assess the concept of Web 3.0. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these points when interpreting the results of this study and applying them to practice. Further studies are needed to better explain the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors by using measurement tools that are standardized and appropriate in the Web 3.0 era.

    Conclusion

    In this study, a systematic literature review was conducted on the studies investigating the association between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors, and a meta-analysis was performed on the results of quantitatively synthesizable cross-sectional studies. Our study found that eHealth literacy has fairly significant positive correlations with health-related behaviors such as self-management behavior, medication adherence, disease management, and prevention actions. Among health-related behaviors, health-promoting behavior was observed to have the highest correlation with eHealth literacy. The findings from our study indicate that eHealth literacy can be a mediator in the process by which health-related information leads to changes in health-related behaviors. Larger-scale studies with stronger validity are needed to evaluate the detailed relationship between the proficiency level of eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors for health promotion in the future.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (The Ministry of Science and ICT [Information and Communications Technology]) (number: 2020R1A2C1101560) and the fourth phase of the Brain Korea 21 Program in 2022.

    Authors' Contributions

    KK, SS, SK, and EL conceived and designed this study. All authors participated in the selection of studies and acquisition of data. KK, SK, and EL analyzed and interpreted the data. KK, SK, and EL wrote the original draft. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript. SK and EL equally served as corresponding authors.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist.

    DOCX File , 31 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Search strategy.

    DOCX File , 16 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Risk of bias assessment for the included studies using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

    DOCX File , 23 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    The relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related behaviors in the included studies.

    DOCX File , 21 KB
    1. Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013: Information Triage. Pew Research Center.   URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/information-triage/ [accessed 2021-09-04]
    2. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 1998 Mar 25;279(8):611-614. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Ha Y, Ryu S. Usage of health information on the internet. Health and Welfare Policy Forum 2004;11:71-87. [CrossRef]
    4. Win KT, Hassan NM, Bonney A, Iverson D. Benefits of online health education: perception from consumers and health professionals. J Med Syst 2015 Mar 11;39(3):27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Baskerville NB, Azagba S, Norman C, McKeown K, Brown KS. Effect of a Digital Social Media Campaign on Young Adult Smoking Cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 2016 Mar;18(3):351-360. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Benetoli A, Chen TF, Aslani P. The use of social media in pharmacy practice and education. Res Social Adm Pharm 2015;11(1):1-46. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Chang T, Chopra V, Zhang C, Woolford SJ. The role of social media in online weight management: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2013 Dec 28;15(11):e262 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, Glassberg KI. Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 2013 May;9(2):151-156. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Health Literacy in Healthy People 2030. US Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.   URL: https:/​/health.​gov/​our-work/​national-health-initiatives/​healthy-people/​healthy-people-2030/​health-literacy-healthy-people-2030 [accessed 2021-09-04]
    10. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World. J Med Internet Res 2006 Jul 16;8(2):e9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011 Jul 19;155(2):97-107. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Al Sayah F, Majumdar SR, Williams B, Robertson S, Johnson JA. Health literacy and health outcomes in diabetes: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2013 Mar 13;28(3):444-452 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Kim S, Oh J, Lee Y. Health Literacy: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education 2013;19(4):558-570. [CrossRef]
    14. Lee J, Lee E, Chae D. eHealth Literacy Instruments: Systematic Review of Measurement Properties. J Med Internet Res 2021 Dec 15;23(11):e30644 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Chesser A, Burke A, Reyes J, Rohrberg T. Navigating the digital divide: A systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States. Inform Health Soc Care 2016;41(1):1-19. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Stellefson M, Hanik B, Chaney B, Chaney D, Tennant B, Chavarria EA. eHealth literacy among college students: a systematic review with implications for eHealth education. J Med Internet Res 2011 Dec 01;13(4):e102 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Arcury TA, Sandberg JC, Melius KP, Quandt SA, Leng X, Latulipe C, et al. Older Adult Internet Use and eHealth Literacy. J Appl Gerontol 2020 Mar;39(2):141-150 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Santana S, Lausen B, Bujnowska-Fedak M, Chronaki CE, Prokosch H, Wynn R. Informed citizen and empowered citizen in health: results from an European survey. BMC Fam Pract 2011 May 16;12(1):20 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res 2006 Dec 14;8(4):e27 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Gochman DS. Health Behavior Research. In: Gochman DS, editor. Health Behavior. Boston, MA: Springer; 1988:409-424.
    21. Walker SN, Sechrist K, Pender N. Lifestyle Profile HPLP II. University of Michigan Library. 1995.   URL: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/85349/HPLP_II-English_Version.pdf [accessed 2021-11-21]
    22. Darviri C, Alexopoulos EC, Artemiadis AK, Tigani X, Kraniotou C, Darvyri P, et al. The Healthy Lifestyle and Personal Control Questionnaire (HLPCQ): a novel tool for assessing self-empowerment through a constellation of daily activities. BMC Public Health 2014 Oct 24;14(1):995 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Riegel B, Lee CS, Dickson VV, Carlson B. An update on the self-care of heart failure index. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2009;24(6):485-497 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Walker SN, Sechrist KR, Pender NJ. The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile. Nursing Research 1987;36(2):76-81. [CrossRef]
    25. Short SE, Mollborn S. Social Determinants and Health Behaviors: Conceptual Frames and Empirical Advances. Curr Opin Psychol 2015 Oct;5:78-84 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.   URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm [accessed 2021-09-26]
    28. Herzog R, Álvarez-Pasquin MJ, Díaz C, Del Barrio JL, Estrada JM, Gil Á. Are healthcare workers' intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2013 Mar 19;13:154 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Higgins JPT. Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol 2008 Oct 02;37(5):1158-1160. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 1992;112(1):155-159. [CrossRef]
    31. Gürkan KP, Ayar D. The Impact of e-Health Literacy on Health Promotion Behaviors of High School Students. J Pediatr Res 2020 Jul 8;7(4):286-292. [CrossRef]
    32. Korkmaz Aslan G, Kartal A, Turan T, Taşdemir Yiğitoğlu G, Kocakabak C. Association of electronic health literacy with health-promoting behaviours in adolescents. Int J Nurs Pract 2021 May 22;27(2):e12921. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Hsu W, Chiang C, Yang S. The effect of individual factors on health behaviors among college students: the mediating effects of eHealth literacy. J Med Internet Res 2014 Dec 12;16(12):e287 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Britt RK, Collins WB, Wilson K, Linnemeier G, Englebert AM. eHealth Literacy and Health Behaviors Affecting Modern College Students: A Pilot Study of Issues Identified by the American College Health Association. J Med Internet Res 2017 Dec 19;19(12):e392 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Hwang AR, Kang H. Influence of eHealth Literacy on Health Promoting Behaviors among University Students. Journal of the Korean Society of School Health 2019;32(3):165-174. [CrossRef]
    36. Nam YH, Jung IS. A Comparative Study on the Effect of e-Health Literacy, Health Information Reliability and Health Behavior on the Health Information Use Motive in Korean and Chinese University Students. dcs 2020 Mar 31;21(3):513-520. [CrossRef]
    37. Tariq A, Khan SR, Basharat A. Internet Use, eHealth Literacy, and Dietary Supplement Use Among Young Adults in Pakistan: Cross-Sectional Study. J Med Internet Res 2020 Jul 10;22(6):e17014 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Tsukahara S, Yamaguchi S, Igarashi F, Uruma R, Ikuina N, Iwakura K, et al. Association of eHealth Literacy With Lifestyle Behaviors in University Students: Questionnaire-Based Cross-Sectional Study. J Med Internet Res 2020 Jul 24;22(6):e18155 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Yang S, Luo Y, Chiang C. The Associations Among Individual Factors, eHealth Literacy, and Health-Promoting Lifestyles Among College Students. J Med Internet Res 2017 Jan 10;19(1):e15 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Yang SC, Luo YF, Chiang C. Electronic Health Literacy and Dietary Behaviors in Taiwanese College Students: Cross-Sectional Study. J Med Internet Res 2019 Dec 26;21(11):e13140 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Lin C, Ganji M, Griffiths MD, Bravell ME, Broström A, Pakpour AH. Mediated effects of insomnia, psychological distress and medication adherence in the association of eHealth literacy and cardiac events among Iranian older patients with heart failure: a longitudinal study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 Mar 13;19(2):155-164. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Choi M. Association of eHealth Use, Literacy, Informational Social Support, and Health-Promoting Behaviors: Mediation of Health Self-Efficacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 Oct 28;17(21):7890 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Cui G, Li S, Yin Y, Chen L, Li J, Liang F, et al. The relationship among social capital, eHealth literacy and health behaviours in Chinese elderly people: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2021 Jan 06;21(1):45 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Li S, Cui G, Yin Y, Wang S, Liu X, Chen L. Health-promoting behaviors mediate the relationship between eHealth literacy and health-related quality of life among Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study. Qual Life Res 2021 Aug;30(8):2235-2243 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Ryu H. The association between e-Health literacy and health behaviors in elderly people [master's thesis]. Seoul National University Library. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul National University; 2019.   URL: https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/150537 [accessed 2022-12-31]
    46. Song J, Shin S. The Effects of e-Health Literacy and Subjective Health Status on Health-seeking Behaviors of Elderly Using the Internet in the Community. Journal of Digital Convergence 2020;18(1):321-332. [CrossRef]
    47. Blackstock OJ, Cunningham CO, Haughton LJ, Garner RY, Norwood C, Horvath KJ. Higher eHealth Literacy is Associated With HIV Risk Behaviors among HIV-Infected Women Who Use the Internet. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care 2016;27(1):102-108 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Cho GY, Ha MN. Mediating Effects of Health Belief on the Correlations among Disease-related Knowledge, eHealth Literacy, and Self-care Behaviors in Outpatients with Hypertension. Korean J Adult Nurs 2019;31(6):638-649. [CrossRef]
    49. Chuang H, Kao C, Lin W, Chang Y. Factors Affecting Self-care Maintenance and Management in Patients With Heart Failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 Apr 17;34(4):297-305. [CrossRef]
    50. Guo SH, Hsing H, Lin J, Lee C. Relationships Between Mobile eHealth Literacy, Diabetes Self-care, and Glycemic Outcomes in Taiwanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Cross-sectional Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021 Mar 05;9(2):e18404 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Kim HJ, Kim M. Comparison Study of e-Health Literacy and Health Promoting Behaviors of Cancer Patients and Nurses. Asian Oncol Nurs 2020;20(2):100-109. [CrossRef]
    52. An L, Bacon E, Hawley S, Yang P, Russell D, Huffman S, et al. Relationship Between Coronavirus-Related eHealth Literacy and COVID-19 Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among US Adults: Web-Based Survey Study. J Med Internet Res 2021 Mar 29;23(3):e25042 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Kim S, Son Y. Relationships Between eHealth Literacy and Health Behaviors in Korean Adults. Comput Inform Nurs 2017 Mar;35(2):84-90. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Lee S, Son H, Lee D, Kang H. The Influence of e-Health Literacy, Subjective Health Status, and Health Information Seeking Behavior on the Internet on Health Promoting Behavior. KSW 2017;12(4):55-67. [CrossRef]
    55. Li X, Liu Q. Social Media Use, eHealth Literacy, Disease Knowledge, and Preventive Behaviors in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study on Chinese Netizens. J Med Internet Res 2020 Oct 09;22(10):e19684 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Mitsutake S, Shibata A, Ishii K, Oka K. Association of eHealth literacy with colorectal cancer knowledge and screening practice among internet users in Japan. J Med Internet Res 2012 Dec 13;14(6):e153 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Mitsutake S, Shibata A, Ishii K, Oka K. Associations of eHealth Literacy With Health Behavior Among Adult Internet Users. J Med Internet Res 2016 Jul 18;18(7):e192 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Park H, Moon M, Baeg JH. Association of eHealth literacy with cancer information seeking and prior experience with cancer screening. Comput Inform Nurs 2014 Oct;32(9):458-463. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Rabenbauer LM, Mevenkamp N. Factors in the Effectiveness of e-Health Interventions for Chronic Back Pain: How Self-Efficacy Mediates e-Health Literacy and Healthy Habits. Telemed J E Health 2021 Mar 01;27(2):184-192. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Basu A, Dutta MJ. Participatory change in a campaign led by sex workers: connecting resistance to action-oriented agency. Qual Health Res 2008 Jan 01;18(1):106-119. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Lee K, Hoti K, Hughes JD, Emmerton LM. Consumer Use of "Dr Google": A Survey on Health Information-Seeking Behaviors and Navigational Needs. J Med Internet Res 2015 Dec 29;17(12):e288 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Ritterband LM, Thorndike FP, Cox DJ, Kovatchev BP, Gonder-Frederick LA. A behavior change model for internet interventions. Ann Behav Med 2009 Aug;38(1):18-27 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. 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]
    64. Scott TL, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Baker DW. Health literacy and preventive health care use among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Med Care 2002 May;40(5):395-404. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Davis TC, Gazmararian J, Kennen EM. Approaches to improving health literacy: lessons from the field. J Health Commun 2006 Oct 23;11(6):551-554. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Aharony N, Goldman R. E-health literacy and the vaccination dilemma: an Israeli perspective. Information Research 2017;22(2):paper751 [FREE Full text]
    67. Kim B, Jung M, Han C. Health Promoting Behavior of University Students and Related Factors. Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion 2002;19(1):59-85 [FREE Full text]
    68. Jeong JH, Kim JS. Health Literacy, Health Risk Perception and Health Behavior of Elders. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs 2014;25(1):65. [CrossRef]
    69. Xie B. Older adults, e-health literacy, and collaborative learning: An experimental study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci 2011 Mar 14;62(5):933-946. [CrossRef]
    70. Xie B. Improving older adults' e-health literacy through computer training using NIH online resources. Libr Inf Sci Res 2012 Jan 01;34(1):63-71 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Tennant B, Stellefson M, Dodd V, Chaney B, Chaney D, Paige S, et al. eHealth literacy and Web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. J Med Internet Res 2015 Mar 17;17(3):e70 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Marrie RA, Salter AR, Tyry T, Fox RJ, Cutter GR. Preferred sources of health information in persons with multiple sclerosis: degree of trust and information sought. J Med Internet Res 2013 Mar 17;15(4):e67 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Bundorf MK, Wagner TH, Singer SJ, Baker LC. Who searches the internet for health information? Health Serv Res 2006 Jul;41(3 Pt 1):819-836 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Finney Rutten LJ, Agunwamba AA, Wilson P, Chawla N, Vieux S, Blanch-Hartigan D, et al. Cancer-Related Information Seeking Among Cancer Survivors: Trends Over a Decade (2003-2013). J Cancer Educ 2016 Jul;31(2):348-357. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Finney Rutten LJ, Blake KD, Greenberg-Worisek AJ, Allen SV, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Online Health Information Seeking Among US Adults: Measuring Progress Toward a Healthy People 2020 Objective. Public Health Rep 2019;134(6):617-625 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Lee BG, Byun WJ, Lim JR. The influence of individual’s e-health literacy on doctor-patient communication. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society 2010;27(3):89-125 [FREE Full text]
    77. Kim M, Lee J, Doo E. Factors Influencing Healthcare Provider-Patient Communication of Patients with Chronic Diseases. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm 2020;26(2):73. [CrossRef]

    ‎
    eHEALS: eHealth Literacy Scale
    HPLP: Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile
    NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

    Edited by T Leung; submitted 05.07.22; peer-reviewed by YC Chen, G Klein; comments to author 19.10.22; revised version received 09.11.22; accepted 23.12.22; published 30.01.23

    Copyright

    ©Keonhee Kim, Sangyoon Shin, Seungyeon Kim, Euni Lee. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 30.01.2023.

    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.