Journal of Gerontological Nursing

Feature Article 

Comparing Factors Associated With eHealth Literacy Between Young and Older Adults

Eunjin Yang, MSN, RN; Sun Ju Chang, PhD, RN; Hyunju Ryu, MSN, RN; Hee Jung Kim, MSN, RN; Sun Joo Jang, PhD, RN

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to compare the factors associated with adults' eHealth literacy, which is vital for health consumers. A secondary data analysis was conducted with data collected from November 2017 to February 2018 for a project on the development of a Korean version of the eHealth Literacy Scale. Participants were recruited through an online survey for young adults (n = 210, mean age = 25.5 [SD = 4.7] years) and a face-to-face survey for older adults (n = 187, mean age = 73.2 [SD = 4.8] years). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to analyze data and determine eHealth literacy predictors. Older adults held more positive attitudes toward internet health information than young adults (mean = 16.49 [SD = 2.54] and 17.04 [SD = 2.41], respectively; p = 0.029); however, eHealth literacy levels were comparable (mean = 30.50 [SD = 4.62] and 30.95 [SD = 4.17], respectively; p = 0.305). Attitude toward internet health information was a significant predictor of eHealth literacy in both groups, and age was only a predictor among young adults. These results elucidate predictors of eHealth literacy and inform strategies to improve eHealth literacy among young and older adults. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46(8), 46–56.]

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to compare the factors associated with adults' eHealth literacy, which is vital for health consumers. A secondary data analysis was conducted with data collected from November 2017 to February 2018 for a project on the development of a Korean version of the eHealth Literacy Scale. Participants were recruited through an online survey for young adults (n = 210, mean age = 25.5 [SD = 4.7] years) and a face-to-face survey for older adults (n = 187, mean age = 73.2 [SD = 4.8] years). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to analyze data and determine eHealth literacy predictors. Older adults held more positive attitudes toward internet health information than young adults (mean = 16.49 [SD = 2.54] and 17.04 [SD = 2.41], respectively; p = 0.029); however, eHealth literacy levels were comparable (mean = 30.50 [SD = 4.62] and 30.95 [SD = 4.17], respectively; p = 0.305). Attitude toward internet health information was a significant predictor of eHealth literacy in both groups, and age was only a predictor among young adults. These results elucidate predictors of eHealth literacy and inform strategies to improve eHealth literacy among young and older adults. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46(8), 46–56.]

The channels through which people get information about health care are diverse, and include health care professionals, peers, and internet sources (Fox, 2011). Most people still consult with physicians or other health care providers about their health issues as a first choice; however, growing numbers of internet users search for health information online (Fox, 2011). The internet has become integrated into daily life, and people can quickly send, receive, and produce information from a variety of devices, such as smartphones, desktop computers, and laptop computers (Korea Internet & Security Agency, 2018). Thus, the internet is a convenient channel for getting health information in the digital era (Medlock et al., 2015). Consequently, the field of electronic health (eHealth), an “emerging field of medical informatics, referring to the organization and delivery of health services and information using the internet and related technologies,” is becoming widespread (Eysenbach, 2001, p. 1).

Although internet service and information are relatively easy to access and reasonably prevalent, the accuracy and quality of data are not guaranteed (Fast et al., 2013). Moreover, people who search the internet for health information must possess the knowledge, skills, interest, and self-efficacy to use technology; they also must have an understanding of their own health conditions (Zulman et al., 2011). eHealth literacy is “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” (Norman & Skinner, 2006b, p. 2), and it is necessary when electronic resources are used for health-related purposes (Norman & Skinner, 2006b). There have been numerous studies that provide a general perspective of the skills, comfort levels, and knowledge required to use health information (Park & Lee, 2015; Stellefson et al., 2019). eHealth resources are useful for a variety of populations and in many contexts, so assessing not only direct skills of eHealth but also perceived eHealth literacy could help promote internet health information users' confidence and competencies (Norman, 2011).

Previous studies have shown that eHealth literacy fosters healthy behaviors such as exercise, diet, sleep (Hsu et al., 2014; Mitsutake et al., 2016), and cancer-screening practice (Mitsutake et al., 2012). Moreover, eHealth literacy can affect one's treatment decisions (Kim & Son, 2017). Consequently, eHealth intervention studies have increased over the years (Boogerd et al., 2015). In addition, some factors that affect eHealth literacy have been identified, including sociodemographic factors such as age, sex, and education (Aponte & Nokes, 2017; Gazibara et al., 2016; Milne et al., 2015), as well as computer-related factors, such as the number of electronic devices used and the user's internet experience (Richtering et al., 2017; Tennant et al., 2015). However, there has been limited examination of the associated factors of eHealth literacy (Richtering et al., 2017), and few studies have addressed the differences in these factors between young adults and older adults. Young adults are active users of the internet, so they use internet health information for a variety of reasons and actively try to solve health problems based on online information (Ybarra & Suman, 2008). Although older adults often lack the knowledge and skills to use internet health information, they could use these inexpensive and convenient health resources to manage their chronic conditions (Zulman et al., 2011). Young adults are considered a highly connected group, and older adults are considered a vulnerable population of digital inequality (McDonough, 2016). Therefore, the predictors of eHealth literacy could differ between these two age groups (Reiners et al., 2019). Hence, the characteristics and predictors of the target populations' eHealth literacy must be considered during the design and development of appropriate eHealth programs (Nelson et al., 2016).

In the current study, we compared the factors associated with eHealth literacy of young and older adults, including sociodemographic, health, and internet-usage related factors, to obtain more in-depth research through the lens of age stratification.

Method

Design

A secondary data analysis was conducted using existing data to gain secondary perspectives on the data. The original data were collected from November 2017 to February 2018 for a research project that focused on the development of the Korean version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) (Chang et al., 2018).

Participants

According to previous studies, eHealth literacy is related to age and internet experience (Neter & Brainin, 2012; van der Vaart & Drossaert, 2017). In South Korea, approximately 100% of teenagers and those in their 20s and 30s use the internet; however, adults age ≥60 are less likely to use the internet (Korea Internet & Security Agency, 2018). For these reasons, participants were recruited through convenience sampling based on age stratification. Inclusion criteria were: (a) ≥65 years of age (older adults) or 18 to 34 years of age (young adults), and (b) individuals who had used the internet at least once in the past 1 month. Participants were excluded if they had speech disorders (excluded from face-to-face surveys only), diagnosed psychiatric disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism), or evidence of cognitive impairment with self-reported history, as these individuals may be vulnerable or lack the capacity to decide whether to participate in the research (Humphreys et al., 2015). To screen for cognitive impairment, authors (H.R., H.J.K.) conducted a Mini-Mental State Examination; individuals with a score <24 were excluded (Yun et al., 2013).

Information regarding sample size calculation has been detailed in another study (Chang et al., 2018). Because the current study is a secondary data analysis, we conducted a post hoc power analysis to verify the power. The powers were 0.99 (young adults) and 0.98 (older adults) considering an 0.17 effect size (Tennant et al., 2015), an alpha of 0.05, and nine predictor variables.

Measures

Sociodemographic Characteristics. Participants' sociodemographic factors, such as age, education level, financial status, the presence of a spouse, and current disease, were investigated. Internet usage characteristics were also examined, such as duration of use and search history concerning internet health information (Jung et al., 2011).

eHealth Literacy. The eHEALS is a self-report instrument designed to assess perceived skills, comfort, and knowledge concerning seeking, evaluating, and using health-related information resources based on social cognitive theory and self-efficacy theory, and not necessarily actual skills (Norman & Skinner, 2006a). This scale comprises eight items measured with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Total scores range from 8 to 40, with higher scores reflecting higher eHealth literacy. The eHEALS has two additional items about the usefulness of internet information for health-related decision making and the importance of accessibility of internet health resources. These two items involve arousing participants' interest and are not a formal part of the tool; therefore, they are excluded from summed scores according to the tool's guideline. Cronbach's alpha coefficients, concerning internal reliability, were 0.88 in the eHEALS development study (Norman & Skinner, 2006a) and 0.89 in the current study. The principal component analysis supported one factor, which accounted for 56% of variance (Norman & Skinner, 2006a).

Attitudes Toward Internet Health Information. The tool used to measure attitudes toward internet health information comprises five items using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) (Jung et al., 2011). The items include: Internet health information is (1) reliable, (2) helpful, (3) concrete, (4) not accurate, and (5) up-to-date. Total scores range from 5 to 25, and higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward internet health information. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80 in a previous study (Chang & Im, 2014) and 0.67 in the current study.

Individuals' Perceived Health Status. The questionnaire used to measure individuals' perceived health status comprised 5 items measured with a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree): (1) I think that I am healthy; (2) I am healthier than others of the same age; (3) I seem to get sick more easily than others; (4) I usually take good care of my health; and (5) I take care of my health better than others of the same age. Higher scores indicated better perceived health status. Cronbach's alphas were 0.79 in a previous study (Park et al., 2013) and 0.80 in the current study.

Data Collection

An online survey was conducted with young adults (n = 210), and a face-to-face survey was conducted with older adults (n = 192). Although the web-based survey is suitable for young adults who are avid internet users, it is not suitable for the older adult group (Eysenbach & Wyatt, 2002). Therefore, we collected data using two methods, such as online surveys and face-to-face surveys considering participant preferences and characteristics. The online survey used a Google survey system and young adults were recruited from an internet portal site. Young adults who wanted to voluntarily participate in the study after answering the screening questions about cognitive dysfunction and psychiatric disease history were considered qualified. Potential participants received an email with survey links and an information sheet. Face-to-face surveys for eligible older adults were administered at two older adult welfare centers that are highly accessible by community members. The older adult welfare centers are for various welfare needs, such as leisure activities, hobbies, continuing education, and health management.

Ethical Considerations

The parent study and current secondary data analysis were reviewed and approved by the researchers' Institutional Review Board. Eligible young adults who passed the screening questions received online survey links and a consent form. The research information addressed research purposes and processes, which included that participants could withdraw at any time. All young adults provided informed written consent.

Concerning older adults, we received approval from the directors of the two welfare centers to post recruitment notices on bulletin boards. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant after explaining research purposes and processes. We assured participants that they could withdraw at any time. All personal identification information was replaced with a serial number after completed questionnaires were submitted.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0. Descriptive analysis using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations was conducted to determine the sociodemographic factors and characteristics of internet usage. Chi-square tests were used to compare the categorical variables between age groups. Independent t tests were used to compare eHEALS survey results, attitudes toward internet health information, and individuals' perceived health status between age groups. Lastly, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted: we entered sociodemographic factors in the first block, health-related factors in the second block, and internet usage-related factors in the third block. We considered personal (e.g., sociodemographic status), situational (e.g., health concerns), and environmental (e.g., access to the internet) contexts to make blocks based on the complexity of eHealth literacy (Levin-Zamir & Bertschi, 2018).

Results

Participants' Sociodemographic Characteristics

Participants' general characteristics and other variables are presented in Table 1. All 210 young adults who wished to participate completed the survey (valid response rate = 100%). Young adults' mean age was 25.5 years (SD = 4.71, range = 18 to 34). One-hundred eighty-eight (89.5%) young adults had at least a college education. Most were financially stable (88.1%), did not have a spouse (81.4%), currently did not have a disease (89%), and had used the internet for at least 6 years (86.7%). Most (90.5%) used smartphones to search the internet. Frequently searched content concerning health information included diseases (84.8%), treatment (69%), and medicine (57.6%).

General Characteristics and Health-Related Variables of Participants (N = 397)General Characteristics and Health-Related Variables of Participants (N = 397)

Table 1:

General Characteristics and Health-Related Variables of Participants (N = 397)

In total, 195 older adults were approached for face-to-face surveys at the two welfare centers; however, 187 participants completed the survey (valid response rate = 95.9%). Older adults' mean age was 73.2 years (SD = 4.78, range = 65 to 86). Two-thirds (63.1%) of older adults had at least a college education. Most were financially stable (71.7%), had a spouse (75.9%), had a disease (57.8%), and had used the internet for at least 6 years (59.4%). One fourth of older adults searched for internet health information using a mobile device. The most frequently searched content concerning health information included diseases (58.8%), health behaviors (36.4%), and treatment (30.5%).

Attitude Toward Internet Health Information and Perceived Health Status

Young and older adults' scores concerning attitudes toward internet health information were 16.49 (SD = 2.54, range = 8 to 22) and 17.04 (SD = 2.41, range = 7 to 25), respectively, which was significantly different (p = 0.029). Older adults held more positive attitudes concerning internet health information. The highest scoring item was Internet health information is helpful at 3.72 (SD = 0.63, range = 1 to 5) and 3.75 (SD = 0.71, range = 1 to 5), respectively. The lowest scoring item was Internet health information is accurate at 2.93 (SD = 0.73, range = 1 to 5) and 2.90 (SD = 0.81, range = 1 to 5), respectively.

A significant difference was found between groups concerning individuals' perceived health status. Older adults perceived themselves as healthier than their younger counterparts (mean = 21.68 [SD = 3.81, range = 8 to 29] and 19.19 [SD = 4.07, range = 7 to 29], respectively; p < 0.001). The highest scoring items were I think that I am healthy among young adults (mean = 4.50 [SD = 0.96, range = 1 to 6]) and I usually take good care of my health among older adults (mean = 4.75 [SD = 0.93, range = 2 to 6]).

Predictors of eHealth Literacy

The average eHealth literacy scores in each group were 30.50 (SD = 4.62, range = 16 to 40) for young adults and 30.95 (SD = 4.17, range = 15 to 40) for older adults, which was not significantly different (t = 1.027, p = 0.305).

Before conducting hierarchical multiple regression analyses, data were examined for multicollinearity of independent variables using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance limit. VIF (≤1.93 in young adults and ≤1.49 in older adults) and tolerance limit (0.526 to 0.964 in young adults and 0.673 to 0.955 in older adults) met recommended cutoff values (Field, 2013); therefore, multicollinearity was not of concern. Durbin-Watson statistics were calculated to determine autocorrelation. The results were 1.748 in young adults and 2.146 in older adults, indicating no severe autocorrelation.

Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses for factors associated with eHealth literacy are summarized in Table 2. Concerning young adults, in the first block, sociodemographic variables explained 3.1% of eHealth literacy (R2adj = 0.031, F[2,203] = 2.639, p = 0.035). Age was negatively associated with eHealth literacy, whereas education was positively associated. The second block, regarding health-related factors, did not significantly increase R2adj (ΔR2adj = 0.016, Fchange = 1.704, p = 0.181). Finally, internet usage-related factors explained an additional 22.8% of eHealth literacy, indicating that positive attitude toward internet health information was associated with better eHealth literacy (ΔR2adj = 0.228, Fchange = 20.966, p < 0.001).

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting eHealth LiteracyHierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting eHealth Literacy

Table 2:

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting eHealth Literacy

Concerning older adults, in the first block, sociodemographic variables explained 4.8% of eHealth literacy (R2adj = 0.048, F[2,180] = 3.288, p = 0.013), indicating that financial status was negatively associated with eHealth literacy. The second block, regarding health-related factors, did not significantly increase R2adj (ΔR2adj = 0.014, Fchange = 1.343, p = 0.260). Finally, internet usage-related factors explained an additional 20.3% of eHealth literacy, and attitude toward internet health information emerged as the strongest predictor (ΔR2adj = 0.203, Fchange = 16.295, p < 0.001). In sum, attitude toward internet health information and age were predictors of eHealth literacy among young adults, and attitude toward internet health information was the most significant predictor among older adults.

Discussion

In the current study, we examined the characteristics of young and older adults regarding their health and internet health information use, especially focusing on group differences in eHealth literacy and the associated factors. The most reliable predictor in both groups was individuals' attitude toward internet health information. Age was only a predictor among young adults.

Some factors may have created selection bias in this study. Among the older adults, approximately 63% were highly educated, 71% were financially stable, and 60% were regular technology users. In previous studies, a correlation between education level and digital literacy has been found (van der Vaart & Drossaert, 2017). Moreover, socioeconomic status could also be correlated with digital health literacy, as people with a low socioeconomic status have a deficit of financial resources to obtain devices that provide internet access (Choi & Di-Nitto, 2013). Regarding the eHealth literacy level, older adults' level was comparable to that of young adults in this study. This result was inconsistent with another study that compared the differences between college students and older adults concerning eHealth literacy (Hsu, 2019). In addition, the level of eHealth literacy among older adults in the current study was higher than what was found in a prior study (Milne et al., 2015), but similar to older adult users of social media (Tennant et al., 2015). In fact, older adults in the current study reported eHealth literacy levels even higher than college students and young adults previously reported in some recent studies (Shiferaw et al., 2020). One possible reason for this difference is that we included older adult participants who had used the internet at least once within the past 1 month, so these older participants might have similar characteristics to young adults and regular internet users. In addition, our sample may not be generalizable to all older adults for the reasons mentioned above; however, considering the rapidly growing number of older Korean internet users and that approximately 90% of people have access to the internet (Korea National Information Society Agency, 2018), this result may prove helpful for understanding this group.

Concerning the predictors of eHealth literacy, individuals' attitudes toward internet health information were robust predictors in both age groups. The older adults' proportion of positive attitude was higher than the young adult group in the current study and higher than previously reported in older adults aged >55 years (Jung et al., 2011). Many theorists suggest that attitude is one of the major components affecting behavioral intention, which leads to certain behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Davis, 1989). In addition, a positive attitude toward technology and internet information foster involvement in technology and the use of internet information (Wong et al., 2014). In this context, a positive attitude leads to frequent searching for internet health information, which can lead to higher eHealth literacy. Therefore, people who hold positive attitudes toward internet health information may be more likely to be health-oriented and have healthy activities than non-users (Park et al., 2013). Because the concerns and preferences of eHealth are usually triggered by an individual's experiences in the health care system (Ware et al., 2017), educators and health care providers, especially gerontological nurses, need to consider this common factor when developing efficient strategies to improve eHealth literacy.

Age was a significant predictor among young adults, which coincides with several earlier studies (Duplaga, 2015; Hargittai et al., 2019; Hofstede et al., 2014); however, it was not a significant predictor among older adults. One possible reason is that although young adults are a highly connected group, the homogeneity of eHealth literacy is not guaranteed. There is heterogeneous digital fluency between people born in the digital era and people who learned to use computers and the internet in adult life (Wang et al., 2013). Owing to the dramatic rise in high-speed internet access in South Korea since the 2000s, people in their 30s may likely differ compared to those in their early 20s concerning digital fluency and eHealth literacy (An, 2014). When a health care provider meets young adult patients who need internet health information or eHealth services, age should be considered in addition to other factors regarding eHealth literacy.

Implications for Clinical Practice

Our findings are inconsistent with the common concerns that older adults hold negative attitudes toward eHealth and display lower levels of eHealth literacy than younger people (Saied et al., 2014). In addition, the predictors of eHealth literacy were similar between young and older adults. Therefore, our study has some practical implications for both older adults and the field of gerontological nursing.

In South Korea, internet usage of people age ≥65 years has increased three-fold compared to 5 years ago (Korea Internet & Security Agency, 2018). In addition, age-related barriers have been weakened through high internet penetration. Older adults have shown increased awareness of the benefits of technology use; hence, like young adults, they also feel positive about the acquired information (Broady et al., 2010). Our study sheds light on older adults' positive attitudes toward internet health information and their high level of perceived knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy of eHealth. Therefore, gerontological nurses could use this information for health education.

In terms of health promotion efforts transferred from offline to online environments, knowledge, skills, and comfort levels of accessing health information using technology are essential to narrow health disparities (Werts & Hutton-Rogers, 2013). Although older adults' internet accessibility is growing quickly in Korea, their competency and practical use are still below that of the general population (Korea National Information Society Agency, 2018). Our results show that older adults have a positive attitude toward internet health information, and they, like young adults, may favor eHealth as their eHealth literacy predictors were similar to those of their young counterparts. However, eHEALS measures perceived skills, not actual skills, so further studies are needed about actual skills in eHealth literacy and health behaviors to prepare strategies for promoting health-related internet use among older adults. Through such research, gerontological nurses may find a way to enhance not only older adults' perceived eHealth skills but also their actual eHealth literacy skills.

Limitations

The current study had several limitations. First, as we mentioned above, eHEALS, which is a self-report scale, has been criticized for representing self-efficacy, not actual eHealth literacy competencies (Park et al., 2013). A more comprehensive survey tool that measures actual ability to use eHealth according to the various type of applications could help verify adults' actual skills. Nonetheless, eHEALS is one of the most useful tools to determine appropriateness and to provide guidance to people using eHealth (Collins et al., 2012). Furthermore, as eHEALS has been translated into many languages and has been used in different populations and in a variety of contexts (Karnoe & Kayser, 2015), it has the advantage of comparing people in various contexts. Second, the tool for attitudes toward internet health information had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.67 in the current study. Alphas <0.70 are deemed to have questionable internal consistency (Cortina, 1993). Third, people with psychiatric disorders were excluded due to ethical and practical challenges, potentially compromising generalizability of data.

Conclusion

Although previous studies suggest that older adults are a vulnerable population in this modern digital society, our study indicates that older adults hold positive attitudes toward internet health information. Moreover, older adults' eHealth literacy and its predictors are comparable to those of young adults. This study thus bridges earlier research gaps about eHealth. Health care providers should assist older adults in their acquisition of internet health information and service as they do with young adults.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211 doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [CrossRef]
  • An, J. (2014).A history of Korean internet: Retrospective 20th century. Bloter & Media.
  • Aponte, J. & Nokes, K. M. (2017). Electronic health literacy of older Hispanics with diabetes. Health Promotion International, 32(3), 482–489 doi:10.1093/heapro/dav112 [CrossRef] PMID:26681770
  • Boogerd, E. A., Arts, T., Engelen, L. J. & van de Belt, T. H. (2015). “What is eHealth”: Time for an update?JMIR Research Protocols, 4(1), e29 doi:10.2196/resprot.4065 [CrossRef] PMID:25768939
  • Broady, T., Chan, A. & Caputi, P. (2010). Comparison of older and younger adults' attitudes towards and abilities with computers: Implications for training and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 473–485 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00914.x [CrossRef]
  • Chang, S. J. & Im, E. O. (2014). A path analysis of internet health information seeking behaviors among older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 35(2), 137–141 doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2013.11.005 [CrossRef] PMID:24332965
  • Chang, S. J., Yang, E., Ryu, H., Kim, H. J. & Yoon, J. (2018). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the eHealth literacy scale in Korea. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing, 30(5), 504–515 doi:10.7475/kjan.2018.30.5.504 [CrossRef]
  • Choi, N. G. & Dinitto, D. M. (2013). The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/internet use. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(5), e93 doi:10.2196/jmir.2645 [CrossRef] PMID:23639979
  • Collins, S. A., Currie, L. M., Bakken, S., Vawdrey, D. K. & Stone, P. W. (2012). Health literacy screening instruments for eHealth applications: A systematic review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 45(3), 598–607 doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.04.001 [CrossRef]
  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104 doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 [CrossRef]
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340 doi:10.2307/249008 [CrossRef]
  • Duplaga, M. (2015). A cross-sectional study assessing determinants of the attitude to the introduction of eHealth services among patients suffering from chronic conditions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15(1), 33 doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0157-3 [CrossRef] PMID:25927312
  • Eysenbach, G. (2001). What is e-health?Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(2), E20 doi:10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20 [CrossRef] PMID:11720962
  • Eysenbach, G. & Wyatt, J. (2002). Using the internet for surveys and health research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2), E13 doi:10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13 [CrossRef] PMID:12554560
  • Fast, A. M., Deibert, C. M., Hruby, G. W. & Glassberg, K. I. (2013). Evaluating the quality of internet health resources in pediatric urology. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 9(2), 151–156 doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.01.004 [CrossRef] PMID:22281281
  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
  • Fox, S. (2011).The social life of health information 2011. https://assets0.flashfunders.com/offering/document/e670ae83-4b9a-40f0-aac7-41b64dbc7068/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf
  • Gazibara, T., Kurtagic, I., Kisic-Tepavcevic, D., Nurkovic, S., Kovacevic, N., Gazibara, T. & Pekmezovic, T. (2016). Computer and online health information literacy among Belgrade citizens aged 66–89 years. Health Promotion International, 31(2), 335–343 doi:10.1093/heapro/dau106 [CrossRef] PMID:25576152
  • Hargittai, E., Piper, A. M. & Morris, M. R. (2018). From internet access to internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(4), 881–890 doi:10.1007/s10209-018-0617-5 [CrossRef]
  • Hofstede, J., de Bie, J., van Wijngaarden, B. & Heijmans, M. (2014). Knowledge, use and attitude toward eHealth among patients with chronic lung diseases. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(12), 967–974 doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.08.011 [CrossRef] PMID:25269992
  • Hsu, W. C. (2019). The effect of age on electronic health literacy: Mixed-method study. JMIR Human Factors, 6(2), e11480 doi:10.2196/11480 [CrossRef] PMID:31066696
  • Hsu, W., Chiang, C. & Yang, S. (2014). The effect of individual factors on health behaviors among college students: The mediating effects of eHealth literacy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(12), e287 doi:10.2196/jmir.3542 [CrossRef] PMID:25499086
  • Humphreys, K., Blodgett, J. C. & Roberts, L. W. (2015). The exclusion of people with psychiatric disorders from medical research. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 70, 28–32 doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.08.005 [CrossRef] PMID:26424420
  • Jung, W. S., Kang, H. G., Suk, M. H. & Kim, E. H. (2011). The use of the internet health information for the elderly. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing, 25(1), 48–60 doi:10.5932/JKPHN.2011.25.1.048 [CrossRef]
  • Karnoe, A. & Kayser, L. (2015). How is eHealth literacy measured and what do the measurements tell us? A systematic review. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 7(4), 576–600 doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.038 [CrossRef]
  • Kim, S. H. & Son, Y. J. (2017). Relationships between eHealth literacy and health behaviors in Korean adults. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 35(2), 84–90 doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000255 [CrossRef] PMID:27258808
  • Korea Internet & Security Agency. (2018). 2017 survey on internet usage. https://www.nia.or.kr/site/nia_kor/ex/bbs/View.do?cbIdx=99870&bcIdx=20794&parentSeq=20794
  • Korea National Information Society Agency. (2018). 2018 the report on the digital divide. https://www.nia.or.kr/site/nia_kor/ex/bbs/View.do?cbIdx=81623&bcIdx=20566&parentSeq=20566
  • Levin-Zamir, D. & Bertschi, I. (2018). Media health literacy, eHealth literacy, and the role of the social environment in context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8), 1643 doi:10.3390/ijerph15081643 [CrossRef] PMID:30081465
  • McDonough, C. C. (2016). The effect of ageism on the digital divide among older adults. Journal of Gerontology & Geriatric Medicine, 2(1), 1–7 doi:10.24966/GGM-8662/100008 [CrossRef]
  • Medlock, S., Eslami, S., Askari, M., Arts, D. L., Sent, D., de Rooij, S. E. & Abu-Hanna, A. (2015). Health information-seeking behavior of seniors who use the internet: A survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(1), e10 doi:10.2196/jmir.3749 [CrossRef] PMID:25574815
  • Milne, R. A., Puts, M. T., Papadakos, J., Le, L. W., Milne, V. C., Hope, A. J., Catton, P. & Giuliani, M. E. (2015). Predictors of high eHealth literacy in primary lung cancer survivors. Journal of Cancer Education, 30(4), 685–692 doi:10.1007/s13187-014-0744-5 [CrossRef] PMID:25355524
  • Mitsutake, S., Shibata, A., Ishii, K. & Oka, K. (2012). Association of eHealth literacy with colorectal cancer knowledge and screening practice among internet users in Japan. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(6), e153 doi:10.2196/jmir.1927 [CrossRef] PMID:23149453
  • Mitsutake, S., Shibata, A., Ishii, K. & Oka, K. (2016). Associations of eHealth literacy with health behavior among adult internet users. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(7), e192 doi:10.2196/jmir.5413 [CrossRef] PMID:27432783
  • Nelson, L. A., Mulvaney, S. A., Gebretsadik, T., Ho, Y.-X., Johnson, K. B. & Osborn, C. Y. (2016). Disparities in the use of a mHealth medication adherence promotion intervention for low-income adults with type 2 diabetes. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 12–18 doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv082 [CrossRef] PMID:26186935
  • Neter, E. & Brainin, E. (2012). eHealth literacy: Extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(1), e19 doi:10.2196/jmir.1619 [CrossRef] PMID:22357448
  • Norman, C. (2011). eHealth literacy 2.0: Problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e125 doi:10.2196/jmir.2035 [CrossRef] PMID:22193243
  • Norman, C. D. & Skinner, H. A. (2006a). eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(4), e27 doi:10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27 [CrossRef] PMID:17213046
  • Norman, C. D. & Skinner, H. A. (2006b). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9 doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 [CrossRef] PMID:16867972
  • Park, D., Kwon, M. & Choi, J. (2013). The influence of health information orientation, attitude of internet health information, and e-Health literacy on personal health behaviors. Journal of Public Relations, 17(3), 379–413 doi:10.15814/jpr.2013.17.3.379 [CrossRef]
  • Park, H. & Lee, E. (2015). Self-reported eHealth literacy among undergraduate nursing students in South Korea: A pilot study. Nurse Education Today, 35(2), 408–413 doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2014.10.022 [CrossRef] PMID:25466791
  • Reiners, F., Sturm, J., Bouw, L. J. W. & Wouters, E. J. M. (2019). Sociodemographic factors influencing the use of eHealth in people with chronic diseases. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(4), 645 doi:10.3390/ijerph16040645 [CrossRef] PMID:30795623
  • Richtering, S. S., Hyun, K., Neubeck, L., Coorey, G., Chalmers, J., Usherwood, T., Peiris, D., Chow, C. K. & Redfern, J. (2017). eHealth literacy: Predictors in a population with moderate-to-high cardiovascular risk. JMIR Human Factors, 4(1), e4 doi:10.2196/humanfactors.6217 [CrossRef] PMID:28130203
  • Saied, A., Sherry, S. J., Castricone, D. J., Perry, K. M., Katz, S. C. & Somasundar, P. (2014). Age-related trends in utilization of the internet and electronic communication devices for coordination of cancer care in elderly patients. Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 5(2), 185–189 doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2013.11.001 [CrossRef] PMID:24495698
  • Shiferaw, K. B., Mehari, E. A. & Eshete, T. (2020). eHealth literacy and internet use among undergraduate nursing students in a resource limited country: A cross-sectional study. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 18, 100273 doi:10.1016/j.imu.2019.100273 [CrossRef]
  • Stellefson, M., Paige, S. R., Alber, J. M., Chaney, B. H., Chaney, D., Apperson, A. & Mohan, A. (2019). Association between health literacy, electronic health literacy, disease-specific knowledge, and health-related quality of life among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e12165 doi:10.2196/12165 [CrossRef] PMID:31172962
  • Tennant, B., Stellefson, M., Dodd, V., Chaney, B., Chaney, D., Paige, S. & Alber, J. (2015). eHealth literacy and Web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(3), e70 doi:10.2196/jmir.3992 [CrossRef] PMID:25783036
  • van der Vaart, R. & Drossaert, C. (2017). Development of the digital health literacy instrument: Measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e27 doi:10.2196/jmir.6709 [CrossRef] PMID:28119275
  • Wang, Q. E., Myers, M. D. & Sundaram, D. (2013). Digital natives und digital immigrants. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 55(6), 409–420 doi:10.1007/s11576-013-0390-2 [CrossRef]
  • Ware, P., Bartlett, S. J., Paré, G., Symeonidis, I., Tannenbaum, C., Bartlett, G., Poissant, L. & Ahmed, S. (2017). Using eHealth technologies: Interests, preferences, and concerns of older adults. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 6(1), e3 doi:10.2196/ijmr.4447 [CrossRef] PMID:28336506
  • Werts, N. & Hutton-Rogers, L. (2013). Barriers to achieving e-health literacy. American Journal of Health Sciences, 4(3), 115–120 doi:10.19030/ajhs.v4i3.8007 [CrossRef]
  • Wong, C. K., Yeung, D. Y., Ho, H. C., Tse, K.-P. & Lam, C.-Y. (2014). Chinese older adults' internet use for health information. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 33(3), 316–335 doi:10.1177/0733464812463430 [CrossRef] PMID:24717738
  • Ybarra, M. & Suman, M. (2008). Reasons, assessments and actions taken: Sex and age differences in uses of internet health information. Health Education Research, 23(3), 512–521 doi:10.1093/her/cyl062 [CrossRef] PMID:16880222
  • Yun, H. S., Kim, E., Suh, S. R., Kim, M. H. & Kim, H. (2013). Diabetes reduces the cognitive function with the decrease of the visual perception and visual motor integration in male older adults. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 9(5), 470–476 doi:10.12965/jer.130059 [CrossRef]
  • Zulman, D. M., Kirch, M., Zheng, K. & An, L. C. (2011). Trust in the internet as a health resource among older adults: Analysis of data from a nationally representative survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), e19 doi:10.2196/jmir.1552 [CrossRef] PMID:21324832

General Characteristics and Health-Related Variables of Participants (N = 397)

Variablen (%)p Value
Young Adults (n = 210)Older Adults (n = 187)
Education level<0.001
  College and above188 (89.5)118 (63.1)
  High school or less22 (10.5)69 (36.9)
Financial status<0.001
  Stable185 (88.1)134 (71.7)
  Not stable25 (11.9)53 (28.3)
Presence of a spouse<0.001
  No171 (81.4)45 (24.1)
  Yes39 (18.6)142 (75.9)
Current disease<0.001
  No187 (89)78 (41.7)
  Yes23 (11)108 (57.8)
  Missing1 (0.5)
Duration of internet usage<0.001
  ≥6 years182 (86.7)111 (59.4)
  <6 years28 (13.3)76 (40.6)
Place to search for internet health information
  Phone190 (90.5)47 (25.1)<0.001
  Home141 (67.1)156 (83.4)<0.001
  Workplace39 (18.6)4 (2.1)<0.001
  Internet café6 (2.9)1 (0.5)0.126
  Public office1 (0.5)39 (20.8)<0.001
Health information searched
  Disease178 (84.8)110 (58.8)<0.001
  Treatment145 (69)57 (30.5)<0.001
  Medication121 (57.6)42 (22.5)<0.001
  Diagnostic methods91 (43.3)35 (18.7)<0.001
  Health behaviors81 (38.6)68 (36.4)0.523
  CAM15 (7.1)40 (21.4)<0.001
  Other17 (8.1)24 (12.8)0.167
Age (years)25.5 (4.71) (18 to 34)73.2 (4.78) (65 to 86)<0.001
KeHEALS score30.50 (4.62) (16 to 40)30.95 (4.17) (15 to 40)0.305
Attitude toward internet health information16.49 (2.54) (8 to 22)17.04 (2.41) (7 to 25)0.029
Individual's perceived health status19.19 (4.07) (7 to 29)21.68 (3.81) (8 to 29)<0.001

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting eHealth Literacy

VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3
BβtpBβtpBβtp
Young adults (n = 210)
(Constant)34.63731.53717.435
Sociodemographic factors
  Age−0.256−0.261−2.9120.004−0.279−0.284−3.1730.002−0.179−0.182−2.2150.028
  Education level (1 = college and above)2.4650.1642.2090.0282.3920.1592.1540.0321.2530.0831.2790.202
  Financial status (1 = financially unstable)0.2370.0170.2420.8090.4680.0330.4800.6321.1480.0811.3400.182
  Presence of a spouse (1 = yes)0.9100.0770.9180.3601.2120.1021.2220.2230.9150.0771.0490.296
Health-related factors
  Current disease (1 = yes)1.2080.0821.1550.2501.2820.0871.3980.164
  Individual's perceived health status0.1840.1622.2520.0250.0560.0490.7590.449
Internet usage–related factors
  Place of internet use (1 = mobile)−0.967−0.062−1.0160.311
  Duration of internet usage (1 = ≥6 years)1.4080.1021.6870.093
  Attitude toward internet health information0.8880.4857.618<0.001
R2adj (ΔR2adj)0.0310.047 (0.016)0.275 (0.228)***
F (P)2.639*2.688*9.731***
Older adults (n = 187)
(Constant)34.86131.11119.273
Sociodemographic factors
  Age−0.054−0.063−0.8190.414−0.061−0.071−0.9220.358−0.057−0.066−0.9560.341
  Education level (1 = college and above)1.3890.1621.9300.0551.4710.1722.0550.0410.9640.1131.4460.150
  Financial status (1 = financially unstable)−1.520−0.165−2.0270.044−1.248−0.136−1.6510.101−0.829−0.090−1.2170.225
  Presence of a spouse (1 = yes)−0.640−0.067−0.8410.402−0.653−0.068−0.8510.396−0.321−0.034−0.4700.639
Health-related factors
  Current disease (1 = yes)0.4840.0580.7370.4620.4870.0580.8390.403
  Individual's perceived health status0.1770.1632.1090.0360.0580.0530.7550.451
Internet usage–related factors
  Place of internet use (1 = mobile)0.5200.0550.8430.400
  Duration of internet usage (1 = ≥6 years)0.8610.1021.4040.162
  Attitude toward internet health information0.7900.4616.959<0.001
R2adj (ΔR2adj)0.0480.062 (0.014)0.265 (0.203)***
F (P)3.288*2.966**8.225***
Authors

Ms. Yang is Doctoral Student, Dr. Chang is Associate Professor, Research Institute of Nursing Science, Ms. Ryu is Doctoral Student, and Ms. Kim is Doctoral Student, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, and Dr. Jang is Assistant Professor, Red Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea.

The authors have disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise. This research was supported by the 2017 Seoul National University (SNU) invitation program for distinguished scholars of SNU, and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2017R1C1B5017768).

Address correspondence to Sun Ju Chang, PhD, RN, Associate Professor, Research Institute of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea; email: changsj@snu.ac.kr.

Received: August 09, 2019
Accepted: March 16, 2020

10.3928/00989134-20200707-02

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents