Is eHealth literacy and healthy behaviour hindered by the generation gap?
Author(s):
Wan-Chen Hsu (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

08 SES 10, Educational Perspectives on Health Literacy and Action Competence

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-24
15:30-17:00
Room:
K3.24
Chair:
Monica Carlsson

Contribution

The world’s Internet penetration rate is approximately 25.6%, which implies that a quarter of the world’s population are Internet users (Han, 2009). Taiwan is currently fifth in Asia in terms of highest internet usage and has an internet penetration ratio of 65.90% (Han, 2009).

The eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020 identified the lack of awareness of eHealth opportunities among users as one of the barriers to the acceptance of eHealth solutions, and proposed to support activities aimed at increasing citizens’ eHealth literacy (European Commission, Directorate-General Communication Networks, Content and Technology, 2014). In this report on the 28 EU countries, of the 26,566 respondents from different EU countries, 59% used the Internet in the previous year to retrieve health information, 25% used it to access relevant health information, while 92% said they might use the health information. Thus, even if the individual possessed little knowledge of the eHealth information, it was still possible to take appropriate action. In this age of information, where a vast amount of health information can be obtained from the internet, the impact on the individual cannot be ignored. However, the credibility and accuracy of online information is questionable, and people may lack background knowledge to interpret these messages, thus generating risks through self-diagnosis and treatment (Hsu, Chen, & Ho, 2011).

As more people use the Internet or mobile devices, eHealth literacy continues to be an important issue in health promotion. eHealth literacy system users use the Internet to gain access to information and to understand and apply them to improve or promote health (Norman & Skinner, 2006). However, the public is less likely to notice that the health information provided on the Internet is credible and is often unaware of, or even unable to determine, the accuracy of health information (Hsu, Chen, & Ho, 2011). Since this ability belongs in the eHealth literacy category, it needs attention.

eHealth literacy has the potential to positively support consumer health empowerment (Werts, & Hutton-Rogers, 2013). The Integrative Model of eHealth Use (IMeHU) proposes that macro level disparities in the social structures are connected to health disparities through the micro level conduits of eHealth literacy, motivation, and ability (Bodie & Dutta, 2008). However, few studies have explored the associations among individual factors, eHealth literacy, and healthy behaviour, and IMeHU has not been empirically investigated.

In Taiwan, college students are one of the groups with a higher frequency of access to Internet health information. The proportion of older people using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is lower than other age groups, making it difficult to cross the digital wall (Lin & Lin, 2009). Does eHealth literacy and healthy behaviour exist across the generation gap? In this study, college students and the elderly, over the age of 55, enrolled as participants. The purpose of this study was to use the IMeHU as a framework to examine the differences in eHealth literacy and health behaviour across age groups.

Method

Participants In this study, two classes of college students in the general education program were assessed. In addition, three classes of senior university students aged 55 or above, enrolled in a university-affiliated, formal, unaccredited, voluntary, lifelong learning program also participated in this study. Data were collected from an urban university. Prior to the study, the program was reviewed and approved by the university’s institutional review board (ethics committee). Among the 208 respondents, 65 (31.25%) were college students and 143 (68.75%) were senior university students. Instruments eHealth Literacy Scale (eHLS) The eHLS measures a student’s ability to seek, find, understand, and evaluate health information from electronic sources and apply this knowledge to address or solve a health problem. The 12-item eHLS developed by Chiang, Yang, and Hsu (2015) includes the following three dimensions: functional (three items), interactive (four items), and critical eHealth literacy (five items). The functional eHealth literacy dimension evaluates elementary reading and writing skills, and basic knowledge of health conditions and systems. Interactive eHealth literacy refers to communicative and social skills that can be used to extract information and derive meaning from different forms of communication, and to apply new information to changing circumstances. Critical eHealth literacy refers to advanced cognitive and social skills that can be applied to critically analyse information and use this information to exert greater control over life events and situations related to individual and community goals. Respondents were asked to select an answer that most accurately described their respective eHealth literacy on a 5-point Likert scale wherein 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was calculated to determine reliability with the Likert scale, overall reliability being .84. Healthy Behaviour Scale (HBS) The 12-item HBS developed by Chiang, Yang, and Hsu (2015) includes three health behaviour dimensions included eating (e.g. low-fat dairy foods, low-sugar cereals, vegetable, and fruit consumption [more than five servings per day]), exercise (e.g. at least three times per week, monitor pulse while exercising), and sleep behaviour (e.g. sleeping well, not sleeping during the day). Participants responded to the survey questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1=never, 5=always). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was calculated to determine reliability with the Likert scale, overall reliability being .83. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics and t-test were conducted to understand the effect of age on eHealth literacy and health behaviour.

Expected Outcomes

A Comparison of eHealth literacy and health behavior among age group In terms of eHealth literacy, there was a significant difference in the overall eHealth literacy scores between the college students and senior university students (t207=2.98; p<.01) with the overall scores of college students (mean=43.78) being higher than the seniors (mean=40.93). In the functional eHealth literacy dimension (t207=12.17; p<.001), the college students’ score (mean=11.43) was higher than the seniors (mean=8.08). However, there was no significant difference between interactive and critical eHealth literacy. In terms of health behaviour, there were significant differences in the overall health behaviour scores (t207=-8.72 p<.01), eating behaviour (t207=-6.22 p<.001), exercise behaviour (t207=-4.06 p<.001), and sleep behaviour (t207=-8.55 p<.001). The health behaviour scores of the seniors were significantly higher than the college students’ scores. This study used the IMeHU to make a comparison of eHealth literacy and health behaviour among various age groups. The results indicate that the performance of eHealth literacy and health behaviour differs across generations, and though the students’ eHealth literacy was better than the seniors it did not translate into healthy behaviour. The findings will stimulate further debate about how a health education framework can be translated into practical approaches and will contribute to further refinement of the eHealth literacy concept.

References

1.Bodie, G. D., & Dutta, M. J. (2008). Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health disparities, and the digital divide. Health Marketing Quarterly, 25(1-2), 175-203. 2.Chiang, C. H., Yang, S. C., & Hsu, W. C. (2015). Development and validation of the E-health literacy scale and investigation of the relationships between E-health literacy and healthy behavior among undergraduate students in Taiwan. Formosa Journal of Mental Health, 28(3), 389-420. 3.European Commission, Directorate-General Communication Networks, Content and Technology. (2014). European citizens’ digital health literacy. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_404_en.pdf 4.Han, J. C. (2009). Internet penetration rate among countries. Retrieved from http://www.credit.com.tw/newweb/market/weekly/index.cfm?sn=46 5.Hsu, W. C, Chen, S. F., & Ho, C. J. (2011). Experience of using web health information among college students: An analysis from the health literacy perspective. Journal of Health Promotion and Health Education Contents, 35, 1 - 22. 6.Lin, Y. H., & Lin, S. J. (2009). Digital divides revisited: A process view of the acquisitions of information and communication technology (ICT) skills by the elderly. Journal of Library and Information Science Research, 3(2), 75-102. 7.Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9. 8.Werts, N., & Hutton-Rogers, L. (2013). Barriers to achieving e-health literacy. American Journal of Health Sciences, 4(3), 115-119.

Author Information

Wan-Chen Hsu (presenting / submitting)
National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences
Center for Teaching & Learning Development Office of Academic Affairs
Kaohsiung City

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.