eHEALS is one of the most prevalent scales used to measure eHealth literacy. However, significant criticism toward its conceptualization had raised. This study tests the effects of eHEALS alongside constructs from the elaboration likelihood model and information seeking processes, within a multidimensional model to predict medical decision-making quality. We test this model using a sample of 56 participants who completed a 45-minute online simulation task, requiring them to offer recommendation for a hypothetical medical scenario. Findings revealed that neither eHealth literacy nor elaboration likelihood independently predicted decision quality. However, eHEALS was positively associated with higher decision quality, but only among participants who had greater motivation and ability to process health information, and who used more complex information seeking strategies. Findings suggest that the eHEALS measure can be examined using a multidimensional theoretical approach to illustrate the ways in which patients obtain and utilize health information to make informed decisions.
AnS (2007) Attitude toward direct-to-consumer advertising and drug inquiry intention: the moderating role of perceived knowledge. Journal of Health Communication12(6): 567–580.
2.
BodieGDDuttaMJ (2008) Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health disparities, and the digital divide. Health Marketing Quarterly25(1–2): 175–203.
3.
BurawoyM (2009) The Extended Case Method: Four Countries, Four Decades, Four Great Transformations, and One Theoretical Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
4.
CarlssonME (2000) Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer8(6): 453–457.
5.
ChesserABurkeAReyesJ, et al. (2016) Navigating the digital divide: a systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States. Informatics for Health and Social Care41(1): 1–19.
6.
ChevalierADommesAMarquiéJC (2015) Strategy and accuracy during information search on the web: effects of age and complexity of the search questions. Computers in Human Behavior53: 305–315.
7.
ChiuYLTsaiCCLiangJC (2022) Laypeople’s online health information search strategies and use for health-related problems: cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research24(9): e29609.
8.
ChungSYNahmES (2015) Testing reliability and validity of the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) for older adults recruited online. Computers Informatics Nursing33(4): 150–156.
9.
CicchirilloVMabryA (2016) Advergaming and healthy eating involvement: how healthy eating inclinations impact processing of advergame content. Internet Research26(3): 587–603.
10.
CrookBStephensKKPastorekAE, et al. (2016) Sharing health information and influencing behavioral intentions: the role of health literacy, information overload, and the Internet in the diffusion of healthy heart information. Health Communication31(1): 60–71.
11.
CzajaSJSharitJHernandezMA, et al. (2010) Variability among older adults in Internet health information-seeking performance. Gerontechnology9(1): 46–55.
12.
DebrabanderJ (2021) On the relation between decision quality and autonomy in times of patient-centered care: a case study. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy25(4): 629–639.
13.
DinetJChevalierATricotA (2012) Information search activity: an overview. European Review of Applied Psychology62(2): 49–62.
14.
Dutta-BergmanMJ (2005) Developing a profile of consumer intention to seek out additional information beyond a doctor: the role of communicative and motivation variables. Health Communication17(1): 1–16.
15.
GriebelLEnwaldHGilstadH, et al. (2018) eHealth literacy research—Quo vadis?Informatics for Health and Social Care43(4): 427–442.
16.
GuttmanNLevESegevE, et al. (2018) “I never thought I could get health information from the Internet!”: unexpected uses of an Internet website designed to enable Ethiopian immigrants with low/no literacy skills to browse health information. New Media & Society20(7): 2272–2295.
17.
HaunJLutherSDoddVDonaldsonP (2012) Measurement variation across health literacy assessments: implications for assessment selection in research and practice. Journal of Health Communication17(3): 141–159.
18.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
19.
HeponiemiTVirtanenLKaihlanenAM, et al. (2022) Use and changes in the use of the internet for obtaining services among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal population-based survey study. New Media & Society. 14614448221097000.
20.
HuberJTCruzJM (2000) Information needs and information-seeking behaviors of HIV positive men and women. Medical Reference Services Quarterly19(3): 39–48.
21.
HunsakerAHargittaiE (2018) A review of Internet use among older adults. New Media & Society20(10): 3937–3954.
22.
HuoJDesaiRHongYR, et al. (2019) Use of social media in health communication: findings from the health information national trends survey 2013, 2014, and 2017. Cancer Control26(1): 1–10.
23.
KarnoeAKayserL (2015) How is eHealth literacy measured and what do the measurements tell us? A systematic review. Knowledge Management & E-Learning7(4): 576–600.
24.
LewisN (2017) Information seeking and scanning. In: RosslerP (ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Malden, MA: Blackwell & the International Communication Association (ICA), pp. 745–754.
25.
LewisNRossmanCde BruijnGJ, et al. (2022) Dual process models and information engagement: testing effects of seeking, scanning and trust in sources on attiudes toward marijuana. Journal of Communication72(1): 59–82.
26.
McDowellIMacLeanL (1998) Blending qualitative and quantitative study methods in health services research. Health Informatics Journal4(1): 15–22.
27.
MackertMChamplinSEHoltonA, et al. (2014) eHealth and health literacy: a research methodology review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 516–528.
28.
MeschGTalmudIKolobovT (2013) Explaining digital inequalities in Israel. In: RagneddaMMuschertGW (eds) The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 222–236.
29.
MoormanCMatulichE (1993) A model of consumers’ preventive health behaviors: the role of health motivation and health ability. Journal of Consumer Research20(2): 208–228.
30.
NegashSMusaPVogelD, et al. (2018) Healthcare information technology for development: improvements in people’s lives through innovations in the uses of technologies.
31.
NeterEBraininE (2012) eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. Journal of Medical Internet Research14(1): e19.
32.
NeterEBraininE (2017) Perceived and performed ehealth literacy: survey and simulated performance test. JMIR Human Factors4(1): e2.
33.
NeterEBraininE (2019) Association between health literacy, ehealth literacy, and health outcomes among patients with long-term conditions. European Psychologist24: 68–81.
34.
NguyenJMoorhouseMCurbowB, et al. (2016) Construct validity of the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS)among two adult populations: a Rasch analysis. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance2(1): e24.
35.
NorgaardOFurstrandDKlokkerL, et al. (2015) The e-health literacy framework: a conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal7(4): 522–540.
36.
NormanC (2011) eHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. Journal of Medical Internet Research13(4): e125.
37.
NormanCDSkinnerHA (2006a) eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research8(4): e27.
38.
NormanCDSkinnerHA (2006b) eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research8(2): e9.
39.
O’KeefeDJ (2016) Persuasion and social influence. In: JensenKBCraigRT (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Oxford; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–19.
40.
OrgadS (2006) The cultural dimensions of online communication: a study of breast cancer patients’ internet spaces. New Media & Society8(6): 877–899.
41.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19: 123–205.
42.
RégnierFChauvelL (2018) Digital inequalities in the use of self-tracking diet and fitness apps: interview study on the influence of social, economic, and cultural factors. JMIR mHealth and uHealth6(4): e101.
43.
RivaSAntoniettiAIannelloP, et al. (2015) What are judgment skills in health literacy? A psycho-cognitive perspective of judgment and decision-making research. Patient Preference and Adherence9: 1677–1686.
44.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoH, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society: 18(5): 569–582.
45.
SørensenKVan den BrouckeSFullamJ, et al. (2012) Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health12(1): 1–13.
46.
ScheerderAVan DeursenAVan DijkJ (2017) Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes: a systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics34(8): 1607–1624.
47.
SeçkinGHughesSCampbellP, et al. (2021) In Internet we trust: intersectionality of distrust and patient non-adherence. Information, Communication & Society24(5): 751–771.
48.
SharitJHernándezMACzajaSJND, et al. (2008) Investigating the roles of knowledge and cognitive abilities in older adult information seeking on the web. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction15(1): 1–25.
49.
SharitJTahaJBerkowskyRW, et al. (2015) Online information search performance and search strategies in a health problem-solving scenario. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making9(3): 211–228.
50.
SharitJTahaJBerkowskyRW, et al. (2016) Seeking and resolving complex online health information: age differences in the role of cognitive abilities. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting60(1): 1–5.
51.
SynnotAJHillSJGarnerKA, et al. (2016) Online health information seeking: how people with multiple sclerosis find, assess, and integrate treatment information to manage their health. Health Expectations19(3): 727–737.
52.
TennantBStellefsonMDoddV, et al. (2015) eHealth literacy and Web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. Journal of Medical Internet Research17: e70.
53.
TingDSWCarinLDzauV, et al. (2020) Digital technology and COVID-19. Nature Medicine26(4): 459–461.
54.
TrenamanLJansenJBlumenthal-BarbyJ, et al. (2021) Are we improving? Update and critical appraisal of the reporting of decision process and quality measures in trials evaluating patient decision aids. Medical Decision Making41(7): 954–959.
55.
VamosCAMerrellLDetmanL, et al. (2019) Exploring women’s experiences in accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying health information during pregnancy. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health64(4): 472–480.
56.
Van der VaartRDrossaertCHDe HeusM, et al. (2013) Measuring actual eHealth literacy among patients with rheumatic diseases: a qualitative analysis of problems encountered using health 1.0 and health 2.0 applications. Journal of Medical Internet Research15(2): e27.
57.
Van der VaartRVan DeursenAJDrossaertCH, et al. (2011) Does the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? Validation of a Dutch version of the eHEALS in two adult populations. Journal of Medical Internet Research13(4): e86.
58.
Van DeursenAJ (2012) Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health information. International Journal of Medical Informatics81(1): 61–72.
59.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJA (2009) Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Government Information Quarterly26(2): 333–340.
60.
VollmeyerRRheinbergF (2006) Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review18(3): 239–253.
61.
WangXShiJKongH (2021) Online health information seeking: a review and meta-analysis. Health Communication36(10): 1163–1175.
62.
Williams-PiehotaPSchneiderTRPizarroJ, et al. (2003) Matching health messages to information-processing styles: need for cognition and mammography utilization. Health Communication15(4): 375–392.
63.
WuDLiY (2016) Online health information seeking behaviors among Chinese elderly. Library & Information Science Research38(3): 272–279.
64.
WyattSHenwoodFHartA, et al. (2005) The digital divide, health information and everyday life. New Media & Society7(2): 199–218.
65.
ZimmermanMSShawGJr (2020) Health information seeking behaviour: a concept analysis. Health Information & Libraries Journal37(3): 173–191.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
