Content uploaded by Isabella C. Bertschi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Isabella C. Bertschi on Aug 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Review
Media Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy, and the Role
of the Social Environment in Context
Diane Levin-Zamir 1, 2,* and Isabella Bertschi 3
1Department of Health Education and Promotion, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv 62098, Israel
2School of Public Health, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
3Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zürich 8050, Switzerland;
isabella.bertschi@psychologie.uzh.ch
*Correspondence: diamos@zahav.net.il; Tel.: +972-50-626-3033
Received: 17 July 2018; Accepted: 30 July 2018; Published: 3 August 2018
Abstract:
Health literacy describes skills and competencies that enable people to gain access to,
understand and apply health information to positively influence their own health and the health
of those in their social environments. In an increasingly media saturated and digitized world,
these skill sets are necessary for accessing and navigating sources of health information and tools,
such as television, the Internet, and mobile apps. The concepts of Media Health Literacy (MHL)
and eHealth Literacy (eHL) describe the specific competencies such tasks require. This article
introduces the two concepts, and then reviews findings on the associations of MHL and eHL with
several contextual variables in the social environment such as socio-demographics, social support,
and system complexity, as a structural variable. As eHL and MHL are crucial for empowering people
to actively engage in their own health, there is a growing body of literature reporting on the potential
and the effectiveness of intervention initiatives to positively influence these competencies. From an
ethical standpoint, equity is emphasized, stressing the importance of accessible media environments
for all—including those at risk of exclusion from (digital) media sources. Alignment of micro and
macro contextual spheres will ultimately facilitate both non-digital and digital media to effectively
support and promote public health.
Keywords:
health literacy; Media Health Literacy; eHealth Literacy; social environment; health apps;
social support; digital health; empowerment
1. Introduction
Several factors have led, and continue to lead, to the development of health systems that enable,
but also partly expect their users to adopt a much more active role in their health management than
was customary some decades ago. The empowerment of groups and individuals to engage in their
own health, for example by shared decision-making with health professionals, or by adoption of
health-promoting lifestyles, is an important goal of public health in the 21st century and a priority in
the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Being able to actively manage one’s health is very demanding
of citizens. It is largely, although by no means entirely, dependent on the availability, accessibility,
and appropriateness of health information. To reflect the skill set required to effectively manage
health and navigate the health system from health care to disease prevention and health promotion,
the concept of health literacy was developed. A wide variety of definitions exist, but in general Health
literacy (HL) is conceptualized as skills and competences enabling people to obtain and interpret health
information and apply their knowledge to inform health-related decision-making (for an overview of
definitions see e.g., [1,2]).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643; doi:10.3390/ijerph15081643 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 2 of 12
In an increasingly media saturated and digital environment, a large proportion of health-related
messages and information today is circulated and accessed through the media and digital sources. Thus,
researchers together with health practitioners have developed two closely linked, but nonetheless
distinct concepts related to HL: Media Health Literacy [
3
] and eHealth Literacy [
4
]. Media Health
Literacy and eHealth Literacy have both proven to be associated with health information seeking and
with health outcomes such as health behavior and health status across various population groups.
Environmental factors linked to the social, organizational or economic context play an important role
(a) in shaping individual, group or population MHL and eHL skills and (b) by posing specific demands
on the situations in which such skills are required by the individual or group.
This article aims to introduce readers to the concepts of Media Health Literacy and eHealth
Literacy, emphasizing their role in the social environment while demonstrating how context variables
are relevant when applying the concepts in research and practice. We will critically discuss issues
related to the two concepts and explore the ethical aspects of these concepts in research, practice,
and policy.
2. The Concepts of Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy
Media Health Literacy (MHL) [
3
] is based on and builds on the synthesis of health literacy and
media literacy [
5
]—two essential concepts for understanding the scope and significance of eHealth
Literacy. The concept of Media Health Literacy is unique in that it takes into consideration not only
information that has been communicated through the media to offer health guidance; but it also
considers implicit and explicit mass media content commonly generated by commercial entities or
health systems that can be either health-promoting or health-compromising. Based on the typology of
the Nutbeam model of Health Literacy [
6
], Media Health Literacy is conceptualized as a continuum,
ranging from (1) the ability to identify health-related content (explicit and/or implicit) in the various
types of media; (2) recognize its influence on health behavior; (3) critically analyze the content
(comparable to Critical Health Literacy), and (4) express intention to respond through action measured
through personal health behavior or advocacy (comparable to Interactive Health Literacy). Thus,
the validated measure of Media Health Literacy is comprised of these four categories and was shown
to be highly correlated with health empowerment. As such, Media Health Literacy can be considered
the precursor to eHealth literacy and is highly relevant for both non-digital (television, print, radio,
etc.) and digital media (Internet, social media, and mobile tools).
While media in general has long since been recognized as the only social institution that
accompanies the individual throughout the entire life course [
7
], over the past decade, digital media
has received particular attention with regards to use for health purposes. The number of digital health
offers has grown with impressive speed—an annual growth rate of about 25%. According to data
from Research2Guidance, approximately 325,000 health apps were available in 2017, with 78,000 new
mobile health applications being released between 2016 and 2017. Although it has been shown that
only 7% of mHealth apps have more than 50,000 monthly active users, usage proportions are very
likely to increase significantly in the near future [
8
]. The growing importance of digital media has
led researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to reflect on the skills necessary for users, and the
challenges they face to achieve effective outcomes, namely navigating the services, accessing relevant
health information and adopting lifestyle changes. Well over a decade ago, Norman and Skinner [
4
]
as pioneers in the field introduced the term eHealth Literacy (eHL) meaning ”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” (p. 1). They also developed a measurement tool
for eHealth Literacy that has been used in many different settings around the globe, the eHealth
Literacy Scale (eHEALS) [
9
]. It consists of eight items for which respondents self-rate their ease and
skills when navigating Internet sources for valid health information. The original English scale has
been translated into many languages, including Japanese, Korean, German, Italian, Spanish, Greek,
and Hebrew. Although widely used, the eHEALS’ validity has been questioned, mainly due to the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 3 of 12
lack of correlation between eHEALS scores and actual task performance in online health information
seeking [
10
,
11
], and because it does not sufficiently address critical and interactive health literacy
skills [
12
,
13
]. Cameron Norman, the first author of the eHEALS, has also expressed some concern as
to whether the scale is able to measure eHealth Literacy in its totality in a world that has witnessed
the rise of Web 2.0, and that is generally characterized by the use of ever-changing technology:
“The fundamental collection of skills that comprise eHealth Literacy have not likely changed, but the
contexts in which they are expressed (...) have” [
12
] (p. 3). This illustrates the dynamic nature of the
concept of eHealth Literacy, and thus also of Media Health Literacy, as both terms qualify skill sets
that can only be understood and analyzed within the media environment in which they are applied.
3. Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy in Context
The media, and especially the realm of digital media, constitute a complex social environment to
be navigated by consumers in order to promote and maintain health using the information available in
this environment. Tasks related to Media and eHealth Literacy are thus by no means trivial. In order
to understand how demanding they are, we illustrate the multi-faceted nature with a case study
before focusing on context variables associated with Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy
task performance.
Chan and Kaufman [
14
] used Cognitive Task Analysis to map consumers’ performance during
information-seeking and decision-making tasks involving eHealth tools. To disentangle knowledge,
thought processes and skills necessary for task completion, they coded every reported step in a
matrix involving facets of eHealth Literacy and levels of cognitive complexity. They drew on Norman
and Skinner’s [
4
] Lily model which postulates that eHealth Literacy combines six literacy domains:
traditional literacy, information literacy, scientific literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and health
literacy. Any given eHealth Literacy task requires a certain degree of skills and knowledge in the
said areas. In their study, detailed analyses of performance in a six-step task involving a consumer
health webpage showed that any step required skills from at least two literacy domains, often more,
with the cognitive complexity most often rated 4 or 5 out of 6 levels by experts. The most frequently
identified barriers to task completion were encountered with steps requiring information and computer
literacy. Surprisingly, the majority of challenges faced by participants fell within the lower ranges of
cognitive demands.
This example demonstrates that eHealth Literacy, as mentioned, is by no means a trivial set of
skills in a highly digitalized environment. On the contrary, it combines knowledge and skills from a
wide variety of domains and is inherently relevant within the social contexts in which Health Literacy,
Media Health Literacy, and eHealth Literacy are developed and applied by an individual or group.
The following sections, as illustrated in Figure 1, will elaborate on what is known regarding how
factors in an ecological model affect Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy. Growing academic
attention has been given to system complexity, personal and socio-demographic factors such as age,
gender, and education, social environment and context that together play a major role in shaping skills
in performing health literacy related tasks in digital media environments.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 4 of 12
Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2018,15,xFORPEERREVIEW 4of12
Figure1.ThecomplexityofeHealthLiteracy(eHL)andMediaHealthLiteracy(MHL)incontext.
3.1.ComplexityofSystemsandEnvironments
In2009,Parker[15]madeanimportantstatementthatisoccasionallyforgotteninadiscourse
thatfocusesitsattentionpredominantlyonhealthliteracyasanindividualcombinationofskills:
“Onemustalignskillsandabilitieswiththedemandsandcomplexitiesofthesystem”(p.92).She
illustratedthiswithasimpledrawingoftwoarrowspointingtowardeachother,onerepresenting
“skills/abilities”andtheotherlabelled“demands/complexity”.Wherethetwoarrowsmeet,she
wrote,iswherehealthliteracyisexpressed.
Digitalmediasourcesofhealthinformationhaveparticularpotentialtoreducesystem
complexity.Usabilityandaccessibilityaretopicsthatreceivespecificattentionfromsoftware
developersandwebdesigners.Severalfindingssuggestthatfocusingonuserexperienceand
designingwiththeaimofreducingcomplexityarebeneficialfordigitalhealthliteracy.Forexample,
disadvantageinwrittenandspokenlanguageskillscanbebarrierstoaccessingonlinehealth
information[16].Informationshould,therefore,bemadeincreasinglyavailableinmoreinteractive
formatsthatdependlessonformalliteracyandknowledgeofthelocallanguage[17].Meppelinkand
colleagues[18]provideempiricalsupportforthisclaim.Inanexperimentalstudytheyshowthat
recallandattitudechangeweresignificantlyhigherinlowhealthliterateparticipantswhen
informationwaspresentedverballyandenrichedwithanimationssupportingthecontentcompared
tostandardwrittentextandillustrations.Contentmustbeadaptedtoberelevanttothespecific
population,forexampletakingintoconsiderationculturaleatinghabitswhendesigninga
smartphoneapptosupportweightloss[19].Thus,(digital)mediasolutionsforhealthactuallydo
havethepotentialtocontributetomakinghealthinformationmoreaccessibleandunderstandable
forbroadsectionsofthepopulation,eventuallyfosteringpositiveeffectsonhealth[20].
Systemcomplexityisalsoreducedwhenpeoplebecomemoreexperiencedwithhealthliteracy
tasksandwiththetechnologythatcanbeusedtoapplyhealthliteracyskills.Accordingly,eHealth
LiteracyscoresarepositivelyassociatedwithfrequencyofuseoftheInternet[21,22]andwiththe
numberofWebsearchesforhealthinformation[23].HigheHealthLiteracylevelsareassociatedwith
theuseofsocialmediaforthepurposeofseekinghealthinformation,andwithfrequentuseof
electronicdevicesingeneral[24].ItcanalsobeshownthateHealthLiteracyscoresarehigherfor
studentswhohadbeenactivelyinvolvedinsearchingforhealthinformationonlinethanfornon‐
experiencedpeers[25].Similarly,datasuggestthatparentalonlinehealthinformationseekingis
positivelyassociatedwithadolescents’eHealthLiteracyandengagementinonlinesearchesforhealth
information[26].ThesefindingssupporttheconclusionthateHealthLiteracyskillsarestrongly
Figure 1. The complexity of eHealth Literacy (eHL) and Media Health Literacy (MHL) in context.
3.1. Complexity of Systems and Environments
In 2009, Parker [
15
] made an important statement that is occasionally forgotten in a discourse that
focuses its attention predominantly on health literacy as an individual combination of skills: “One must
align skills and abilities with the demands and complexities of the system” (p. 92). She illustrated this
with a simple drawing of two arrows pointing toward each other, one representing “skills/abilities”
and the other labelled “demands/complexity”. Where the two arrows meet, she wrote, is where health
literacy is expressed.
Digital media sources of health information have particular potential to reduce system complexity.
Usability and accessibility are topics that receive specific attention from software developers and web
designers. Several findings suggest that focusing on user experience and designing with the aim of
reducing complexity are beneficial for digital health literacy. For example, disadvantage in written and
spoken language skills can be barriers to accessing online health information [
16
]. Information should,
therefore, be made increasingly available in more interactive formats that depend less on formal literacy
and knowledge of the local language [
17
]. Meppelink and colleagues [
18
] provide empirical support
for this claim. In an experimental study they show that recall and attitude change were significantly
higher in low health literate participants when information was presented verbally and enriched with
animations supporting the content compared to standard written text and illustrations. Content must
be adapted to be relevant to the specific population, for example taking into consideration cultural
eating habits when designing a smartphone app to support weight loss [
19
]. Thus, (digital) media
solutions for health actually do have the potential to contribute to making health information more
accessible and understandable for broad sections of the population, eventually fostering positive
effects on health [20].
System complexity is also reduced when people become more experienced with health literacy
tasks and with the technology that can be used to apply health literacy skills. Accordingly,
eHealth Literacy scores are positively associated with frequency of use of the Internet [
21
,
22
] and
with the number of Web searches for health information [
23
]. High eHealth Literacy levels are
associated with the use of social media for the purpose of seeking health information, and with
frequent use of electronic devices in general [
24
]. It can also be shown that eHealth Literacy scores
are higher for students who had been actively involved in searching for health information online
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 5 of 12
than for non-experienced peers [
25
]. Similarly, data suggest that parental online health information
seeking is positively associated with adolescents’ eHealth Literacy and engagement in online searches
for health information [
26
]. These findings support the conclusion that eHealth Literacy skills are
strongly shaped by exposure to technology, the Internet, and online health information sources in
particular. It may therefore be deduced that the higher the usability of the underlying technology,
i.e., reducing system complexity, the greater the exposure, and the greater the engagement of digital
resources by the population.
3.2. The Role of Socio-Demographics
A number of socio-demographic variables are linked to Media Health Literacy, and specifically to
online health information seeking and eHealth Literacy, measured at the individual level. Media Health
Literacy, to date, measured mainly among adolescents, is highly associated with socioeconomic status
(SES) and mothers’ level of education [
3
]. Regarding digital sources of health information, people
from different age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds, and from diverse ethnic groups refer to
online sources when looking for information on health topics [
27
]. As early as 2006, 80 percent
of adult American Internet users confirmed to have browsed the Web for health information [
28
].
Similar numbers of online health information seeking have more recently been shown in Eurobarometer
data from 28 member states of the European Union [
29
]. American college students even seem to
consider the Internet as their single most important source of health information [
30
]. Still, studies also
identified some socioeconomic differences in online health information seeking. Low rates of online
health information seeking were reported among older adults, among people with low educational
attainment, and in men compared to women [
31
–
34
]. Regarding the use of eHealth tools among
ethnic minorities, the data is inconclusive. According to recent studies, as opposed to previous ones,
no significant differences between groups have been evidenced [
35
]. Yet, the cultural context of eHealth
literacy including mobile health (mHealth) has been recognized [36].
According to Neter and Brainin [
37
], people with high eHealth Literacy are younger and better
educated than people with low eHealth Literacy scores. These associations of eHealth Literacy with
age and education are confirmed by data from various samples, e.g., financially disadvantaged US
families [
38
] and immigrant communities in Canada [
39
]. These socio-demographic differences are
consistent for mHealth use, health literacy, eHealth Literacy, and Media Health Literacy, particularly
with regard to education and age, and secondarily with regard to gender and ethnic background.
Cultural background has also been considered to significantly influence eHealth Literacy and Media
Health Literacy such that researchers in South Korea [
40
] and Italy [
41
], conducted several validation
studies for the eHEALS model to assure its relevancy to local culture.
3.3. Social Networks
Socio-demographics and experience with media and technology are factors on the individual
level that influence eHealth Literacy and Media Health Literacy skill sets. Certainly, individual
level variables contribute to shaping health literacy levels. However, caution is warranted as to
“the individualistic premise of current literature (on health literacy) in which individuals are treated
as isolated and passive actors” [
42
] (p. 1309). Several findings suggest that eHealth Literacy levels
are shaped and can possibly be improved through guidance in online health information seeking
activities by more experienced users as well as in structured learning environments. For example,
Chang and colleagues [
26
] showed that active parental mediation of their adolescent children’s Internet
use predicted adolescents’ eHealth Literacy. Participants in focus groups conducted among Spanish
primary school students reported use of the Internet as a tool for learning about health topics and habits,
but preferred their searches to be guided and supervised by their parents to promote their efficacy and
confidence in dealing with online (health) content [
43
]. Similarly, in a sample of elderly living with
chronic disease, participants reported the Internet as a useful information source on their condition.
Still, they often relied on the help of relatives and friends when assessing the information [
44
]. A similar
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 6 of 12
strategy has been observed for Hispanic breast cancer survivors in the United States; managing online
health information in their case was a responsibility they consistently shared with their offline social
networks [
45
]. Results from a nationally representative Israeli survey indicate that participants with
low eHealth Literacy for whom finding someone (offline) to help them perform and analyze their
online health information searches was easy, partly compensated for their lack of proficiency with
digital health literacy through social support [
46
]. Caregivers’ or significant others’ guidance and
support are thus vital in the development of abilities relevant to eHealth Literacy in context.
4. Improving Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy
Studies focused on the implementation and effectiveness of Media Health Literacy and eHealth
literacy training programs, are relatively few. Regarding Media Health Literacy, as it inherently
includes exercising critical thinking, and acknowledging that new channels of intervention need to
be developed and applied for health promotion among adolescents, Wharf Higgins and Begoray [
47
]
developed the concept of Critical Media Health Literacy. The concept focuses on attributes that include
skill sets, empowerment, and competency of engaged citizenship. While the conceptual basis has been
established, related intervention has been tested primarily on children and adolescents, focusing on
media literacy related to health topics, e.g., alcohol [
48
]. Among adults, health literacy has been
incorporated into media driven interventions, to learn of the differential effects of low and high
health literacy. In order to influence the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages among the rural
community in the US, a media driven intervention was developed and implemented while measuring
the effects among various levels of health literacy. The program was found to be just as effective
among participants with low health literacy as compared to high health literacy [
49
]. Media health
literacy has also been given serious attention not only by public health entities, but also by media
stakeholders, just as journalists, exemplified by the seriousness with which news media serves the
public’s health literacy needs while influencing public health policy as well [
50
]. Still, interventions
aimed at improving Media Health Literacy across the lifespan, based on, and including critical health
literacy, have yet to take a prominent place in intervention research.
Regarding eHealth literacy, a systematic review on eHealth Literacy among college students
concluded that even this young, well-educated population has major shortcomings, the findings of
which show that interventions to improve eHealth Literacy would not only benefit traditional at-risk
groups [
51
]. While literature on interventions aiming to improve digital health literacy is scarce to date,
some promising findings have been published. eHealth Literacy can be developed and improved by
offering structured learning opportunities. For example, an intervention to improve eHealth Literacy
among adolescents composed of three online training lessons yielded significant, though marginal
improvements of digital health literacy levels among the participants. High identification with,
and involvement in the intervention, i.e., feeling that improving eHealth Literacy was important and
relevant, was one of the strongest predictors of changes in skill level, stressing the need to make eHealth
Literacy personally relevant to potential intervention participants [
52
]. An intervention consisting
of four two-hour sessions aimed at helping older adults perform online health information searches
yielded significant improvements of eHealth Literacy from pre- to post-intervention. Participants also
reported changes in health-related attitudes and behaviors following the intervention [
53
–
55
]. It should,
however, be noted that a systematic review on eHealth Literacy intervention studies for older
adults [
56
] concluded that many studies apply weak study designs and that some interventions
lack a thorough theoretical base. Therefore, further research in the area is greatly needed. Likewise,
it should be noted that the reported interventions are primarily skill-based interventions aimed at
increasing individual competence. This type of intervention has its justification, however, coupling
with interventions focusing more on empowerment and change in the environment where health
literacy is applied, is of great importance in an increasingly digitized and media-saturated environment.
Finally, as mentioned, reducing system complexity and improving the accessibility of new health
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 7 of 12
technologies and media content ultimately benefit the general population, not only those with low
levels of Media or eHealth Literacy.
5. Ethical Considerations in Media and eHealth Literacy Practice, Research, and Policy
The need for ethical considerations is just as pertinent and imminent in the areas of media and
digital health literacy as in all areas of public health research. Ethical concerns need to be considered
comprehensively—in practice, research, and policy.
5.1. Media and eHealth Literacy Ethics in Research
Regarding the ethical considerations of research on eHealth and digital/Media Health Literacy,
two main aspects need to be considered for ethical scrutiny—namely sampling framework and
generalizability of results. Increasingly, public health research relies on both samples that are drawn
from big data, and self-reporting through digital systems. In normal research protocol, the use of
personal data would require the consent of the participants. The use of big data systems for sampling
should comply with the same standards even though the data is usually not identified [
57
]. Secondly,
using digital technology (e.g., Smartwatches, fitness trackers) for data collection can seriously limit the
extent to which data is collected from digitally excluded populations, often under-representing those
whom have already been mentioned to tend to have low eHealth Literacy and Media Health Literacy.
Thus, the results of such research cannot claim to be valid for all populations, nor is the principle of
equity in research upheld.
5.2. Media and eHealth Literacy Ethics in Practice and Policy
As mentioned above, interventions with regard to MHL and eHealth literacy have two focal
aspects: improving these areas of health literacy and/or adjusting interventions so that they
are appropriate for the diversity of Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy skills. As such,
ethical practice needs to be exercised as in any intervention, and applied to Media and eHealth
Literacy practice. Intervention in the digital world requires that special attention be given to equity,
allowing access according to need, guaranteeing cultural appropriateness, overcoming the digital
divide, and taking into consideration various stages of digital development. Whether the intervention
is through the digital media or in non-digital media, the characters, storyline, visuals, and content
must be population appropriate. Finally, as the media and digital worlds attract commercial investors,
public health practitioners must exercise scrupulous ethical standards in order to guarantee that no
commercial vested interest is influencing any aspect of the intervention.
In light of all of the above, and in the interests of equity, it is essential that policies for health
promotion, for improving health literacy of the individual, and for promoting organizational health
literacy for the population, take into account the diversity of Media and eHealth Literacy skill levels.
6. Discussion
Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy are two concepts closely linked to health literacy
which is defined as skills and competencies that enable people to obtain and interpret health
information and empower them to maintain and improve their health and the health of the people
around them. In Media and eHealth Literacy, the sources of the said health information and tools are
specified to be the media, or in the case of eHealth Literacy more specifically digital media. Identifying,
extracting, and understanding health information from media sources are by no means straightforward
tasks, even less when the information is to be applied, leading to health decisions and adoption or
change of health behavior. The complexity of processes underlying health literacy tasks explains why
contextual and environmental variables play such an important role in shaping both the development
and the actual use of the necessary skill sets.
Several research findings have indicated that health literacy levels vary by educational background
e.g., [
58
,
59
], and similar findings have been summarized for eHealth Literacy and Media Health
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 8 of 12
Literacy e.g., [
3
], in earlier sections of this article. This may be the result of education acting as an SES
proxy [
35
], as well as skill sets developed through educational settings in the lifespan. The latter is a
standpoint supported by scholars who closely link the development of health literacy to school health
education [
6
,
60
]. Still, caution needs to be exercised neither to interpret these findings as limitations of
populations with low educational backgrounds, nor to conclude that formal education is the only key
to improving general health literacy, Media Health Literacy and eHealth Literacy.
Beyond education, studies on general eHealth Literacy have repeatedly shown that the more
often an individual engages in the search and interpretation of health information, the more confident
they feel doing so. This has yet to be specifically measured for Media Health Literacy. A more
overarching conclusion would thus be that self-efficacy [
61
], a strong predictor of health behavior
adoption, is relevant for the eHL and MHL skills sets as well, supported by experience in the lifespan
(“practice makes perfect”). It thus may be of secondary importance whether this practice is acquired in
structured learning environments provided by formal education or elsewhere. As a third conclusion
from findings summarized previously, it can be understood that social support is paramount for many,
in executing tasks related to health information from media sources. Over a decade ago, Lee, Arozullah,
and Cho [
42
] proposed a research agenda that would examine the associations of health literacy, social
support, and health outcomes. Several studies have researched this assumption, with interesting
results. For example, de Wit and colleagues [
62
] conducted a meta-analysis showing that social support
and co-learning in communities were essential for critical health literacy based on qualitative evidence.
Furthermore, not only the social relevance of the practice of health literacy related tasks is of great
importance, but also system complexity. Digital and non-digital media—and any other—environments
where people encounter health-related information, vary greatly as to how difficult they are to interpret
and navigate. Options exist to reduce complexity of content and presentation mode, as some examples
introduced above can corroborate. It is the joint responsibility of public health researchers and
practitioners, policy makers, and developers to apply what is known and to monitor whether necessary
changes in system complexity are applied, leading to ease of access and usability for the actual
end users. Thus, not only technical accessibility but also the content and modes of presentation
of health information in the media are crucial. Specialists in health promotion, health technology,
and health communication need to work together to create the tools that will empower patients to take
responsibility for their health [63].
While an abundance of studies has been published in recent years on eHealth Literacy and
Media Health Literacy, several limitations are noted, namely the lack of real-time surveys of usage,
the response rates not reflecting the majority of users (30–35% response rates) and lack of research
studying causal pathways (currently most studies are cross-sectional). In addition, comparative
studies between Media and eHealth Literacy may be limited, as general Media Health Literacy
includes media that are often not interactive, such as television, while specifically digital media is
predominantly interactive.
Lastly, the media are unfortunately subjugated to vast commercial interests that in many cases
conflict with the best health interest of consumers. As mentioned above, this leads to very pertinent
ethical challenges in the realm of Media and eHealth Literacy research, further stressing the need for
inter-sectorial cooperation and involvement of political stakeholders in the discourse on health literacy
in media environments.
7. Conclusions
The influence of the social environment on public health is significant, as shown in a wealth of
studies. As society and the social environment on the global level increasingly move towards use of
digital and media tools for delivering health messages, offering health information, navigating health
services, while also increasing the use of the Internet for commercial advertising, then eHealth literacy
and Media Health Literacy skills will likewise play an increasingly essential role. eHealth Literacy
has taken Media Health Literacy to a different level of meaning, as it enables and invites the public to
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 9 of 12
actively interact, respond, and participate in creating, criticizing, and sharing health messages and
information. Future research needs to be expanded to understand the symbiotic relationship between
Media Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy, and the social and cultural environment. On the one hand,
a clearer understanding is necessary to learn of how Media and eHealth Literacy can influence the
social environment that promotes health, while also taking into consideration the influence of the
social and cultural environment on all aspects of the involved skill sets. The pervasive and increasing
access to mobile tools globally will ultimately transform what was once considered the “digital divide”
into numerous degrees of “digital development”. Continued concern must be exercised to enable and
ensure access to media and digital tools for all, such that new technologies can fulfil their primary
purpose: to promote health.
Author Contributions:
Investigation, D.L-Z. and I.B.; Methodology, D.L-Z. and I.B.; Writing—original draft,
D.L-Z. and I.B.; Writing—review and editing, D.L-Z. and I.B.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Sørensen, K.; Van den Broucke, S.; Fullam, J.; Doyle, G.; Pelikan, J.; Slonska, Z.; Brand, H.; HLS-EU
Consortium. Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and
models. BMC Public Health 2012,12. [CrossRef]
2.
Kickbusch, I.S. Health literacy: Addressing the health and education divide. Health Promot. Int.
2001
,16,
289–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Levin-Zamir, D.; Lemish, D.; Gofin, R. Media Health Literacy (MHL): Development and measurement of the
concept among adolescents. Health Educ. Res. 2011,26, 323–335. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Norman, C.D.; Skinner, H.A. eHealth Literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world.
J. Med. Internet Res. 2006,8, e9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Livingstone, S. Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on
social network sites. Communications 2014,39, 283–303. [CrossRef
6.
Nutbeam, D. Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and
communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot. Int. 2000,15, 259–267. [CrossRef]
7.
McGinnis, J.M.; Berwick, D.M.; Daschle, T.A.; Diaz, A.; Fineberg, H.V.; First, W.H.; Gawande, A.; Halfon, N.;
Mourey, R. Systems strategies for better health throughout the life course. In Vital Directions for Health
& Health Care; Dzau, V.J., McClellan, M.B., McGinnis, J.M., Finkelman, E.M., Eds.; National Academy of
Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 43–69. ISBN 978-1-947-10300-9.
8.
Research2Guidance. mHealth App Economics 2017/2018. Current Status and Future Trends in Mobile Health;
Research2Guidance: Berlin, Germany, 2017.
9.
Norman, C.D.; Skinner, H.A. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J. Med. Internet Res.
2006
,8, e27.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Quinn, S.; Bond, R.; Nugent, C. Quantifying health literacy and eHealth literacy using existing instruments
and browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav.
2017,69, 256–267. [CrossRef]
11.
Van der Vaart, R.; van Deursen, A.J.; Drossaert, C.H.; Taal, E.; van Dijk, J.A.; van de Laar, M.A. Does the
eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? Validation of a Dutch version of the
eHEALS in two adult populations. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011,13, e86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Norman, C.D. eHealth literacy 2.0: Problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. J. Med. Internet Res.
2011,13, e125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Van der Vaart, R.; Drossaert, C.H. Development of the digital health literacy instrument: Measuring a broad
spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017,19, e27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Chan, C.V.; Kaufman, D.R. A framework for characterizing eHealth literacy demands and barriers. J. Med.
Internet Res. 2011,13, e94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 10 of 12
15.
Parker, R. Measuring health literacy: What? So what? Now what? In Measures of Health Literacy:
Workshop Summary; Hernandez, L.M., Ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009;
ISBN 978-0-309-13980-9.
16.
Zanchetta, M.S.; Poureslami, I.M. Health literacy within the reality of immigrants’ culture and language.
Can. J. Public Health 2006,97 (Suppl. 2), S26–S30. [PubMed]
17.
Bodie, G.D.; Dutta, M.J. Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health
disparities, and the digital divide. Health Mark. Q. 2008,25, 175–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Meppelink, C.S.; van Weert, J.C.M.; Haven, C.J.; Smit, E.G. The effectiveness of health animations in audiences
with different health literacy levels: An experimental study. J. Med. Internet Res.
2015
,17, e11. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19.
Coughlin, S.S.; Hardy, D.; Caplan, L.S. The need for culturally-tailored smartphone applications for weight
control. J. Ga. Public Health Assoc. 2016,5, 228–232. [PubMed]
20.
Vandenbosch, J.; Van den Broucke, S.; Schinckus, L.; Schwarz, P.; Doyle, G.; Pelikan, J.; Muller, I.;
Levin-Zamir, D.; Schillinger, D.; Chang, P.; et al. The impact of health literacy on diabetes self-management
education. Health Educ. J. 2018,77, 349–362. [CrossRef]
21.
Choi, N.G.; Dinitto, D.M. The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use
patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/Internet use. J. Med. Internet Res.
2013
,15, e93.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Richtering, S.S.; Hyun, K.; Neubeck, L.; Coorey, G.; Chalmers, J.; Usherwood, T.; Peiris, D.; Chow, C.K.;
Redfern, J. eHealth Literacy: Predictors in a population with moderate-to-high cardiovascular risk.
JMIR Hum. Factors 2017,4, e4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Guendelman, S.; Broderick, A.; Mlo, H.; Gemmill, A.; Lindeman, D. Listening to communities: Mixed-method
study of the engagement of disadvantaged mothers and pregnant women with digital health technologies.
J. Med. Internet Res. 2017,19, e240. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Tennant, B.; Stellefson, M.; Dodd, V.; Chaney, B.; Chaney, D.; Paige, S.; Alber, J. eHealth literacy and Web 2.0
health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. J. Med. Internet Res.
2015
,17,
e70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Ghaddar, S.F.; Valerio, M.A.; Garcia, C.M.; Hansen, L. Adolescent health literacy: The importance of credible
sources for online health information. J. Sch. Health 2012,82, 28–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Chang, F.-C.; Chiu, C.-H.; Chen, P.-H.; Miao, N.-F.; Lee, C.-M.; Chiang, J.-T.; Pan, Y.-C. Relationship
between parental and adolescent eHealth Literacy and online health information seeking in Taiwan.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2015,18, 618–624. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Borzekowski, D.L.G. Considering children and health literacy: A theoretical approach. Pediatrics
2009
,124
(Suppl. 3), S282–S288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Fox, S. Online Health Search 2006; PEW Internet & American Life Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
29. European Commission. European Citizens’ Digital Health Literacy; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
30.
Rennis, L.; McNamara, G.; Seidel, E.; Shneyderman, Y. Google it!: Urban community college students’ use of
the Internet to obtain self-care and personal health information. Coll. Stud. J. 2015,49, 414–426.
31.
Kontos, E.; Blake, K.D.; Chou, W.-Y.S.; Prestin, A. Predictors of eHealth usage: Insights on the digital divide
from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2012. J. Med. Internet Res.
2014
,16, e172. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32.
Nölke, L.; Mensing, M.; Krämer, A.; Hornberg, C. Sociodemographic and health-(care-)related characteristics
of online health information seekers: A cross-sectional German study. BMC Public Health
2015
,15, 31.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
Nguyen, A.; Mosadeghi, S.; Almario, C.V. Persistent digital divide in access to and use of the Internet as a
resource for health information: Results from a California population-based study. Int. J. Med. Inform.
2017
,
103, 49–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Baumann, E.; Czerwinski, F.; Reifegerste, D. Gender-specific determinants and patterns of online health
information seeking: Results from a representative German health survey. J. Med. Internet Res.
2017
,19, e92.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Carroll, J.K.; Moorhead, A.; Bond, R.; LeBlanc, W.G.; Petrella, R.J.; Fiscella, K. Who uses mobile phone
health apps and does use matter? A secondary data analytics approach. J. Med. Internet Res.
2017
,19, e125.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 11 of 12
36.
Levin-Zamir, D.; Leung, A.Y.M.; Dodson, S.; Rowlands, G. Health literacy in selected populations:
Individuals, families, and communities from the international and cultural perspective. Inf. Serv. Use
2017,37, 131–151. [CrossRef]
37.
Neter, E.; Brainin, E. eHealth literacy: Extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J. Med.
Internet Res. 2012,14, e19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Knapp, C.; Madden, V.; Wang, H.; Sloyer, P.; Shenkman, E. Internet use and eHealth literacy of low-income
parents whose children have special health care needs. J. Med. Internet Res.
2011
,13, e75. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39.
Zibrik, L.; Khan, S.; Bangar, N.; Stacy, E.; Novak Lauscher, H.; Ho, K. Patient and community centered
eHealth: Exploring eHealth barriers and facilitators for chronic disease self-management within British
Columbia’s immigrant Chinese and Punjabi seniors. Health Policy Technol. 2015,4, 348–356. [CrossRef]
40.
Chung, S.; Park, B.K.; Nahm, E.-S. The Korean eHealth Literacy Scale (K-eHEALS): Reliability and validity
testing in younger adults recruited online. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018,20, e138. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Diviani, N.; Dima, A.L.; Schulz, P.J. A psychometric analysis of the Italian version of the eHealth Literacy
Scale using item response and classical test theory methods. J. Med. Internet Res.
2017
,19, e114. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
42.
Lee, S.-Y.D.; Arozullah, A.M.; Cho, Y.I. Health literacy, social support, and health: A research agenda.
Soc. Sci. Med. 2004,58, 1309–1321. [CrossRef]
43.
Hernán-García, M.; Botello-Díaz, B.; Marcos-Marcos, J.; Toro-Cárdenas, S.; Gil-García, E. Understanding
children: A qualitative study on health assets of the Internet in Spain. Int. J. Public Health 2015,60, 239–247.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Aponte, J.; Nokes, K.M. Electronic health literacy of older Hispanics with diabetes. Health Promot. Int.
2017
,
32, 482–489. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Sorensen, L.; Gavier, M.; Helleso, R. Latina breast cancer survivors informational needs: Information partners.
Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2009,146, 727. [PubMed]
46.
Hayat, T.Z.; Brainin, E.; Neter, E. With some help from my network: Supplementing eHealth Literacy with
social ties. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017,19, e98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Wharf Higgins, J.; Begoray, D. Exploring the borderlands between media and health: Conceptualizing
“Critical Media Health Literacy”. J. Media Lit. Educ. 2012,4, 136–148.
48.
Gordon, C.S.; Jones, S.C.; Kervin, L.; Lee, J.K. Empowering students to respond to alcohol advertisements:
Results from a pilot study of an Australian media literacy intervention. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2016,40,
231–232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Zoellner, J.M.; Hedrick, V.E.; You, W.; Chen, Y.; Davy, B.M.; Porter, K.J.; Bailey, A.; Lane, H.; Alexander, R.;
Estabrooks, P.A. Effects of a behavioral and health literacy intervention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverages:
A randomized-controlled trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016,13, 38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Lopes, F.; Araújo, R. Power to health reporters: Health literacy as a tool to avoid pressures from news sources.
Port. J. Public Health 2018,35, 193–201. [CrossRef]
51.
Stellefson, M.; Hanik, B.; Chaney, B.; Chaney, D.; Tennant, B.; Chavarria, E.A. eHealth literacy among college
students: A systematic review with implications for eHealth education. J. Med. Internet Res.
2011
,13, e102.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Paek, H.-J.; Hove, T. Social cognitive factors and perceived social influences that improve adolescent eHealth
literacy. Health Commun. 2012,27, 727–737. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Xie, B. Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults. J. Med. Internet Res.
2011
,13, e90.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
54.
Xie, B. Older adults, e-health literacy, and collaborative learning: An experimental study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
2011,62, 933–946. [CrossRef]
55.
Xie, B. Experimenting on the impact of learning methods and information presentation channels on older
adults’ e-health literacy. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2011,62, 1797–1807. [CrossRef]
56.
Watkins, I.; Xie, B. eHealth literacy interventions for older adults: A systematic review of the literature.
J. Med. Internet Res. 2014,16, e225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Vayena, E.; Dzenowagis, J.; Brownstein, J.S.; Sheikh, A. Policy implications of Big Data in the health sector.
Bull. World Health Organ. 2018,96, 66–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1643 12 of 12
58.
Sørensen, K.; Pelikan, J.M.; Röthlin, F.; Ganahl, K.; Slonska, Z.; Doyle, G.; Fullam, J.; Kondilis, B.; Agrafiotis, D.;
Uiters, E.; et al. Health literacy in Europe: Comparative results of the European health literacy survey
(HLS-EU). Eur. J. Public Health 2015,25, 1053–1058. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Paasche-Orlow, M.K.; Parker, R.M.; Gazmararian, J.A.; Nielsen-Bohlman, L.T.; Rudd, R.E. The prevalence of
limited health literacy. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2005,20, 175–184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60.
Paakkari, L.; Paakkari, O. Health literacy as a learning outcome in schools. Health Educ.
2012
,112, 133–152.
[CrossRef]
61.
Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977; ISBN 978-0-138-16744-8.
62.
De Wit, L.; Fenenga, C.; Giammarchi, C.; di Furia, L.; Hutter, I.; de Winter, A.; Meijering, L. Community-based
initiatives improving critical health literacy: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence.
BMC Public Health 2017,18, 40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Rudd, R.E.; Rosenfeld, L.; Simonds, V.W. Health literacy: A new area of research with links to communication.
Atl. J. Commun. 2012,20, 16–30. [CrossRef]
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
