TY - JOUR
T1 - eHealth literacy in people living with HIV
T2 - Systematic review
AU - Han, Hae Ra
AU - Hong, Hyejeong
AU - Starbird, Laura E.
AU - Ge, Song
AU - Ford, Athena D.
AU - Renda, Susan
AU - Sanchez, Michael
AU - Stewart, Jennifer
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank Stella Seal for her assistance with paper search. The study was supported by a grant from the Hopkins Center for AIDS Research (P30 AI094189) and, in part, by a grant from the Dorothy Evans Lyne Fund. Additional resources were provided by the Center for Cardiovascular and Chronic Care at the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© Hae-Ra Han, Hyejeong Hong, Laura E Starbird, Song Ge, Athena D Ford, Susan Renda, Michael Sanchez, Jennifer Stewart. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 10.09.2018. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
PY - 2018/9
Y1 - 2018/9
N2 - Background: In the era of eHealth, eHealth literacy is emerging as a key concept to promote self-management of chronic conditions such as HIV. However, there is a paucity of research focused on eHealth literacy for people living with HIV (PLWH) as a means of improving their adherence to HIV care and health outcome. Objective: The objective of this study was to critically appraise the types, scope, and nature of studies addressing eHealth literacy as a study variable in PLWH. Methods: This systematic review used comprehensive database searches, such as PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane, to identify quantitative studies targeting PLWH published in English before May 2017 with eHealth literacy as a study variable. Results: We identified 56 unique records, and 7 papers met the eligibility criteria. The types of study designs varied (descriptive, n=3; quasi-experimental, n=3; and experimental, n=1) and often involved community-based settings (n=5), with sample sizes ranging from 18 to 895. In regards to instruments used, 3 studies measured eHealth literacy with validated instruments such as the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS); 2 studies used full or short versions of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults, whereas the remaining 2 studies used study-developed questions. The majority of studies included in the review reported high eHealth literacy among the samples. The associations between eHealth literacy and health outcomes in PLWH were not consistent. In the areas of HIV transmission risk, retention in care, treatment adherence, and virological suppression, the role of eHealth literacy is still not fully understood. Furthermore, the implications for future research are discussed. Conclusions: Understanding the role of eHealth literacy is an essential step to encourage PLWH to be actively engaged in their health care. Avenues to pursue in the role of eHealth literacy and PLWH should consider the development and use of standardized eHealth literacy definitions and measures.
AB - Background: In the era of eHealth, eHealth literacy is emerging as a key concept to promote self-management of chronic conditions such as HIV. However, there is a paucity of research focused on eHealth literacy for people living with HIV (PLWH) as a means of improving their adherence to HIV care and health outcome. Objective: The objective of this study was to critically appraise the types, scope, and nature of studies addressing eHealth literacy as a study variable in PLWH. Methods: This systematic review used comprehensive database searches, such as PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane, to identify quantitative studies targeting PLWH published in English before May 2017 with eHealth literacy as a study variable. Results: We identified 56 unique records, and 7 papers met the eligibility criteria. The types of study designs varied (descriptive, n=3; quasi-experimental, n=3; and experimental, n=1) and often involved community-based settings (n=5), with sample sizes ranging from 18 to 895. In regards to instruments used, 3 studies measured eHealth literacy with validated instruments such as the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS); 2 studies used full or short versions of Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults, whereas the remaining 2 studies used study-developed questions. The majority of studies included in the review reported high eHealth literacy among the samples. The associations between eHealth literacy and health outcomes in PLWH were not consistent. In the areas of HIV transmission risk, retention in care, treatment adherence, and virological suppression, the role of eHealth literacy is still not fully understood. Furthermore, the implications for future research are discussed. Conclusions: Understanding the role of eHealth literacy is an essential step to encourage PLWH to be actively engaged in their health care. Avenues to pursue in the role of eHealth literacy and PLWH should consider the development and use of standardized eHealth literacy definitions and measures.
KW - EHealth literacy
KW - HIV
KW - Mobile phones
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054213057&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054213057&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2196/publichealth.9687
DO - 10.2196/publichealth.9687
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30201600
AN - SCOPUS:85054213057
SN - 2369-2960
VL - 4
JO - JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
JF - JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
IS - 9
M1 - e64
ER -