Table 2.
Outcome 1: Ability to evaluate online health information.
| Author(s), date | Predictor | Specific measure used | Result |
| Benotsch et al, 2004a[43] | Health literacy (TOFHLA) | Quality rating of health information from reputable (JAMA) and unfounded (AIDS cure) webpages (5 dimensions: accuracy, amount of detail, trustworthiness/credibility, relevance, and usefulness) | Lower health literacy scores predict higher quality ratings for the AIDS cure webpage (unfounded) and lower quality ratings for the JAMA webpage (reputable) (P<.01). |
| Ghaddar et al, 2012b[52] | Health literacy (NVS) | eHEALSc | Students identified as possibly or likely low health literate present significantly lower eHEALS scores than those with adequate health literacy (P<.05). |
| Benotsch et al, 2004a[43] | Educational level | Quality rating of health information from reputable (JAMA) and unfounded (AIDS cure) webpages (5 dimensions: accuracy, amount of detail, trustworthiness/credibility, relevance, and usefulness) | Individuals with fewer years of education assign more credibility to unfounded information (P<.01). Educational level is unrelated to perceived quality of the JAMA webpage. |
| Ghaddar et al, 2012b[52] | Educational level (different grade levels; health classes) | eHEALSc | Freshmen and sophomore students and those who have not taken a health course have lower eHEALS scores relative to students in higher grade levels and those enrolled in a health course (P<.001). eHEALS scores are significantly lower among students from the non-medical focused campuses compared to the 2 high schools with a focus on medical education (P<.001). |
| Kalichman et al, 2006 [56] | Educational level | Quality rating of health information from reputable (JAMA) and unfounded (AIDS cure) web pages | Less education predicts assigning higher credibility to unfounded Internet information (P<.001). Education does not have an impact on the evaluation of the reputable webpage. |
| Knapp et al, 2011a[57] | Educational level | eHEALS (Item 6: “I have the skills I need to evaluate the health resources I find on the Internet” and Item 7: “I can tell high-quality health resources from low-quality health resources on the Internet”) | Parents without college education feel less confident in having the skills to evaluate the health resources they find on the Internet (P<.05) and feel less able to tell high-quality health resources from low-quality health resources on the Internet (P<.001) compared to those with college education. |
| Knapp et al, 2011b[58] | Educational level | eHEALSc | Not having a high school diploma is associated with a 2.5-point decrease in overall eHealth literacy (P<.05). |
| Murray et al, 2003 [64] | Educational level | Perceived ability to appraise online health information | No significant effect of education on self-rated ability in appraising online health information. |
| Neter & Brainin, 2012 [65] | Educational level | eHEALSc | Lower education is associated with lower eHealth literacy (F 1,1274=5.43, P<.02). |
| Van der Vaart et al, 2011 [72] | Educational level | eHEALSc | No significant correlation between educational level and eHEALS scores. |
| Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011 [73] | Educational level | Number of information tasksd (derived from the eHEALS) completed successfully | Educational level is positively correlated with the number of information tasks completed successfully (β=.56, P<.001). |
| Benotsch et al, 2004a[43] | Other skills-based proxies for health literacy – Reading comprehension | Quality rating of health information from reputable (JAMA) and unfounded (AIDS cure) webpages (5 dimensions: accuracy, amount of detail, trustworthiness/credibility, relevance, and usefulness) | Poorer reading comprehension predicts higher quality ratings for the AIDS cure webpage, whereas higher reading comprehension predicts higher quality ratings for the JAMA webpage (P<.01). |
| Birru et al, 2004 [45] | Other skills-based proxies for health literacy – Low general literacy (3rd to 8th grade level) only sample | Perceived ability to locate trustworthy online health information | 7 out of 8 subjects report that they find it very easy to locate trustworthy information on the Internet. The eighth subject notes that it is moderately easy to find information that is trustworthy on the Internet. |
aStudy reported three times because it described the impact of health literacy, educational level, and other skills-based proxies for health literacy on the ability to evaluate the credibility of online health information.
bStudy reported twice because it described the impact of both health literacy and educational level on the ability to evaluate the credibility of online health information.
cThe eHEALS (eHealth Literacy scale) includes specific items about people’s perceived ability to evaluate the quality of online health information (Item 6: “I have the skills I need to evaluate the health resources I find on the Internet” and Item 7: “I can tell high-quality health resources from low-quality health resources on the Internet”). Specific data for these items are, however, not presented in the paper.
dInformation tasks included choosing a website or a search system to seek information, defining search options or queries, selecting information on websites or in search results, and evaluating information sources. Specific data for the task “Evaluating information sources” are not presented in the paper.