背景:电子健康素养量表(eHEALS)是用于测量电子健康素养(eHL)的广泛使用的工具。然而,到目前为止,人们对该仪器是否适用于受COVID-19后病情影响的人的eHL评估知之甚少。这一点尤其重要,因为患有新冠肺炎后疾病的人经常受到来自互联网的虚假信息的影响。
目的:我们研究的目的是评估德国修订的电子健康素养量表(GR-eHEALS)在患有COVID-19后疾病的个体中的有效性和可靠性。
方法:2022年1月至5月进行了一项横断面研究。自我评估调查包括GR-eHEALS,健康状况和互联网使用相关变量,社会人口统计数据,和(后)-COVID-19相关医疗数据。验证性因素分析(CFA)相关分析,并部署了测量不变性测试。
结果:总计,330名参与者被纳入统计分析。CFA显示,2因素模型达到了出色的模型拟合(比较拟合指数=1.00,Tucker-Lewis指数=0.99,近似均方根误差=0.036,标准化均方根残差=0.038)。eHL与基于互联网的健康促进计划知识之间的显着正相关证实了收敛效度,使用这些程序的经验,以及私人互联网使用的持续时间。此外,eHL与网络焦虑的显著负相关支持收敛效度。Further,eHL与精神健康状况和内部健康控制源的显着关系证实了该仪器的标准有效性。然而,eHL与身体健康状况和生活质量的关系无法确定。2因素模型在性别方面是完全测量不变的。关于年龄和教育水平,部分测量不变性得到证实。子量表以及总体GR-eHEALS达到了良好到优异的可靠性(Cronbachα≥.86)。
结论:GR-eHEALS是一种可靠且在很大程度上有效的工具,可用于评估患有COVID-19后疾病的个体的eHL。关于性别的测量不变性得到了充分证实,可以解释群体差异。关于年龄和教育水平,群体差异应谨慎解释。鉴于患有COVID-19后疾病的人很有可能在互联网上遇到错误信息,eHL是在这种情况下高度相关的核心能力,在研究和临床实践中。因此,未来的研究还应该探索捕获eHL的替代工具,以克服GR-eHEALS有效性的缺点。
BACKGROUND: The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) is a widely used instrument for measuring eHealth literacy (eHL). However, little is known so far about whether the instrument is valid for the assessment of eHL in persons who are affected by the post-COVID-19 condition. This is particularly important as people with the post-COVID-19 condition are frequently affected by false information from the internet.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our
study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the German Revised eHealth Literacy Scale (GR-eHEALS) in individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition.
METHODS: A cross-sectional
study was conducted from January to May 2022. The self-assessment survey consisted of the GR-eHEALS, health status- and internet use-related variables, sociodemographic data, and (post)-COVID-19-related medical data. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlational analyses, and tests of measurement invariance were deployed.
RESULTS: In total, 330 participants were included in the statistical analyses. CFA revealed that the 2-factor model reached an excellent model fit (comparative fit index=1.00, Tucker-Lewis index=0.99, root mean square error of approximation=0.036, standardized root mean square residual=0.038). Convergent validity was confirmed by significant positive correlations between eHL and knowledge of internet-based health promotion programs, experience in using these programs, and the duration of private internet use. In addition, a significantly negative relationship of eHL with internet anxiety supported convergent validity. Further, significant relationships of eHL with mental health status and internal health locus of control confirmed the criterion validity of the instrument. However, relationships of eHL with physical health status and quality of life could not be confirmed. The 2-factor model was fully measurement invariant regarding gender. Regarding age and educational level, partial measurement invariance was confirmed. The subscales as well as the overall GR-eHEALS reached good-to-excellent reliability (Cronbach α≥.86).
CONCLUSIONS: The GR-eHEALS is a reliable and largely valid instrument for assessing eHL in individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition. Measurement invariance regarding gender was fully confirmed and allows the interpretation of group differences. Regarding age and educational level, group differences should be interpreted with caution. Given the high likelihood that individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition will be confronted with misinformation on the Internet, eHL is a core competency that is highly relevant in this context, in both research and clinical practice. Therefore, future research should also explore alternative instruments to capture eHL to overcome shortcomings in the validity of the GR-eHEALS.