Background: The digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need... Show moreBackground: The digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for a comprehensive, person-centered assessment of eHealth literacy to understand and address eHealth literacy related needs, to improve equitable uptake and use of digital health technologies. Objective: We aimed to translate and culturally adapt the original eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) to Dutch and to collect initial validity evidence. Methods: The eHLQ was translated using a systematic approach with forward translation, an item intent matrix, back translation, and consensus meetings with the developer. A validity-driven and multi-study approach was used to collect validity evidence on 1) test content, 2) response processes and 3) internal structure. Cognitive interviews (n = 14) were held to assess test content and response processes (Study 1). A pre-final eHLQ version was completed by 1650 people participating in an eHealth study (Study 2). A seven-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data to assess the internal structure of the eHLQ. Invariance testing was performed across gender, age, education and current diagnosis. Results: Cognitive interviews showed some problems in wording, phrasing and resonance with individual's world views. CFA demonstrated an equivalent internal structure to the hypothesized (original) eHLQ with acceptable fit indices. All items loaded substantially on their corresponding latent factors (range 0.51-0.81). The model was partially metric invariant across all subgroups. Comparison of scores between groups showed that people who were younger, higher educated and who had a current diagnosis generally scored higher across domains, however effect sizes were small. Data from both studies were triangulated, resulting in minor refinements to eight items and recommendations on use, score interpretation and reporting. Conclusion: The Dutch version of the eHLQ showed strong properties for assessing eHealth literacy in the Dutch context. While ongoing collection of validity evidence is recommended, the evidence presented indicate that the eHLQ can be used by researchers, eHealth developers and policy makers to identify eHealth literacy needs and inform the development of eHealth interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind. Show less
Poot, C.C.; Meijer, E.; Fokkema, M.; Chavannes, N.H.; Osborne, R.H.; Kayser, L. 2023
BackgroundThe digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for... Show moreBackgroundThe digitalization of healthcare requires users to have sufficient competence in using digital health technologies. In the Netherlands, as well as in other countries, there is a need for a comprehensive, person-centered assessment of eHealth literacy to understand and address eHealth literacy related needs, to improve equitable uptake and use of digital health technologies.ObjectiveWe aimed to translate and culturally adapt the original eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) to Dutch and to collect initial validity evidence.MethodsThe eHLQ was translated using a systematic approach with forward translation, an item intent matrix, back translation, and consensus meetings with the developer. A validity-driven and multi-study approach was used to collect validity evidence on 1) test content, 2) response processes and 3) internal structure. Cognitive interviews (n = 14) were held to assess test content and response processes (Study 1). A pre-final eHLQ version was completed by 1650 people participating in an eHealth study (Study 2). A seven-factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model was fitted to the data to assess the internal structure of the eHLQ. Invariance testing was performed across gender, age, education and current diagnosis.ResultsCognitive interviews showed some problems in wording, phrasing and resonance with individual’s world views. CFA demonstrated an equivalent internal structure to the hypothesized (original) eHLQ with acceptable fit indices. All items loaded substantially on their corresponding latent factors (range 0.51–0.81). The model was partially metric invariant across all subgroups. Comparison of scores between groups showed that people who were younger, higher educated and who had a current diagnosis generally scored higher across domains, however effect sizes were small. Data from both studies were triangulated, resulting in minor refinements to eight items and recommendations on use, score interpretation and reporting.ConclusionThe Dutch version of the eHLQ showed strong properties for assessing eHealth literacy in the Dutch context. While ongoing collection of validity evidence is recommended, the evidence presented indicate that the eHLQ can be used by researchers, eHealth developers and policy makers to identify eHealth literacy needs and inform the development of eHealth interventions to ensure that people with limited digital access and skills are not left behind. Show less
Silven, A.V.; Peet, P.G. van; Boers, S.N.; Tabak, M.; Groot, A. de; Hendriks, D.; ... ; Villalobos-Quesada, M. 2022
Background Implementation of digital health (eHealth) generally involves adapting pre-established and carefully considered processes or routines, and still raises multiple ethical and legal... Show moreBackground Implementation of digital health (eHealth) generally involves adapting pre-established and carefully considered processes or routines, and still raises multiple ethical and legal dilemmas. This study aimed to identify challenges regarding responsibility and liability when prescribing digital health in clinical practice. This was part of an overarching project aiming to explore the most pressing ethical and legal obstacles regarding the implementation and adoption of digital health in the Netherlands, and to propose actionable solutions. Methods A series of multidisciplinary focus groups with stakeholders who have relevant digital health expertise were analysed through thematic analysis. Results The emerging general theme was 'uncertainty regarding responsibilities' when adopting digital health. Key dilemmas take place in clinical settings and within the doctor-patient relationship ('professional digital health'). This context is particularly challenging because different stakeholders interact. In the absence of appropriate legal frameworks and codes of conduct tailored to digital health, physicians' responsibility is to be found in their general duty of care. In other words: to do what is best for patients (not causing harm and doing good). Professional organisations could take a leading role to provide more clarity with respect to physicians' responsibility, by developing guidance describing physicians' duty of care in the context of digital health, and to address the resulting responsibilities. Conclusions Although legal frameworks governing medical practice describe core ethical principles, rights and obligations of physicians, they do not suffice to clarify their responsibilities in the setting of professional digital health. Here we present a series of recommendations to provide more clarity in this respect, offering the opportunity to improve quality of care and patients' health. The recommendations can be used as a starting point to develop professional guidance and have the potential to be adapted to other healthcare professionals and systems. Show less
Silven, A.V.; Peet, P.G. van; Boers, S.N.; Tabak, M.; Groot, A. de; Hendriks, D.; ... ; Villalobos-Quesada, M. 2022
BackgroundImplementation of digital health (eHealth) generally involves adapting pre-established and carefully considered processes or routines, and still raises multiple ethical and legal dilemmas... Show moreBackgroundImplementation of digital health (eHealth) generally involves adapting pre-established and carefully considered processes or routines, and still raises multiple ethical and legal dilemmas. This study aimed to identify challenges regarding responsibility and liability when prescribing digital health in clinical practice. This was part of an overarching project aiming to explore the most pressing ethical and legal obstacles regarding the implementation and adoption of digital health in the Netherlands, and to propose actionable solutions.MethodsA series of multidisciplinary focus groups with stakeholders who have relevant digital health expertise were analysed through thematic analysis.ResultsThe emerging general theme was ‘uncertainty regarding responsibilities’ when adopting digital health. Key dilemmas take place in clinical settings and within the doctor-patient relationship (‘professional digital health’). This context is particularly challenging because different stakeholders interact. In the absence of appropriate legal frameworks and codes of conduct tailored to digital health, physicians’ responsibility is to be found in their general duty of care. In other words: to do what is best for patients (not causing harm and doing good). Professional organisations could take a leading role to provide more clarity with respect to physicians’ responsibility, by developing guidance describing physicians’ duty of care in the context of digital health, and to address the resulting responsibilities.ConclusionsAlthough legal frameworks governing medical practice describe core ethical principles, rights and obligations of physicians, they do not suffice to clarify their responsibilities in the setting of professional digital health. Here we present a series of recommendations to provide more clarity in this respect, offering the opportunity to improve quality of care and patients’ health. The recommendations can be used as a starting point to develop professional guidance and have the potential to be adapted to other healthcare professionals and systems. Show less
Jimenez, G.; Spinazze, P.; Matchar, D.; Huat, G.K.C.; Kleij, R.M.J.J. van der; Chavannes, N.H.; Car, J. 2020
Background: Despite digital health providing opportunities to enhance the quality, efficiency and safety of primary healthcare, the adoption of digital tools and technologies has been slow, partly... Show moreBackground: Despite digital health providing opportunities to enhance the quality, efficiency and safety of primary healthcare, the adoption of digital tools and technologies has been slow, partly because of poor digital health literacy. For primary healthcare systems to take full advantage of these technologies, a capable, digitally literate workforce is necessary. Still, the essential digital health competencies (DHCs) for primary healthcare have not been explored. This review aims to examine the broad literature on DHCs as it applies to Primary Care (PC) settings.Methods: We performed a scoping review on all types of research linking DHCs to PC. We searched all major databases including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library in November 2019. Concurrently, a thorough grey literature search was performed through OpenGrey, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and key government and relevant professional associations' websites. Screening and selection of studies was performed in pairs, and data was analysed and presented using a narrative, descriptive approach. Thematic analysis was performed to identify key DHC domains.Results: A total of 28 articles were included, most of them (54 %) published before 2005. These articles were primarily aimed at PC physicians or general practitioners, and focused on improving knowledge about information technologies and medical informatics, basic computer and information literacy, and optimal use of electronic medical records. We identified 17 DHC domains, and important knowledge gaps related to digital health education and curriculum integration, the need for evidence of the impact of services, and the importance of wider support for digital health.Conclusions: Literature explicitly linking DHCs to PC was mostly published over a decade ago. There is a need for an updated and current set of DHCs for PC professionals to more consistently reap the benefits of digital technologies. This review identified key DHC domains and statements that may be used to guide on the development of a set of DHC for PC, and critical knowledge gaps and needs to be considered. Such a DHC set may be used for curricula development and for ensuring that the essential DHC for PC are met at a clinical or organizational level, and eventually improve health outcomes. Show less
