Associations Between Sociodemographic Characteristics, eHealth Literacy, and Health-Promoting Lifestyle Among University Students in Taipei: Cross-Sectional Validation Study of the Chinese Version of the eHealth Literacy Scale
Dan-Ping Chao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/52314
IF: 7.076
2024-07-19
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Abstract:Background: The popularization of the internet and rapid development of mobile devices have led to an increased inclination and opportunities to obtain health-related information online. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), widely used for measuring eHealth literacy, assesses an individual's ability to search, understand, appraise, and use eHealth information. However, the Chinese version of the eHEALS multiple-factor model remains to be validated, and the correlation between eHEALS and the health-promoting lifestyle profile (HPLP) among university students is rarely explored in Taiwan. Objective: This study aimed to examine the fit, validity, and reliability of the Chinese eHEALS multiple-factor model and to clarify the predictive effects of eHEALS on the HPLP among university students. Methods: University students in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, were recruited, and 406 valid questionnaires including sociodemographic characteristics, eHEALS, and HPLP responses were collected. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to validate the Chinese eHEALS. Independent sample t test, 1-way ANOVA, and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between sociodemographic variables and the HPLP. Pearson product-moment correlation and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to ascertain the predictive effects of eHEALS on the HPLP. Results: The Chinese eHEALS exhibited an optimal fit when delineated into the search, usage, and evaluation 3-factor model (comparative fit index=0.991, Tucker-Lewis index=0.984, root mean square error of approximation=0.062), and its validity and reliability were confirmed. The mean eHEALS score of university students was 3.17/4.00 (SD 0.48) points, and the score for the evaluation subscale was the lowest (mean 3.08, SD 0.56 points). Furthermore, there were significant sex, institution orientation, daily reading time, daily screen time, primary information channel, and perceived health status differences in the HPLP: male participants ( t 404 =2.346, P =.02), participants attending general university ( t 404 =2.564, P =.01), those reading ≥1 hour daily ( F 2,403 =17.618, P <.001), those spending <3 hours on mobile devices or computers daily ( F 2,403 =7.148, P <.001), those acquiring information from others ( t 404 =3.892, P <.001), and those with a good perceived health status ( F 2,403 =24.366, P <.001) had a significantly higher score. After adjusting for sociodemographic variables, the eHEALS score remained an independent predictor of the HPLP. Compared to students with relatively high eHEALS scores, those with relatively low eHEALS scores had a 3.37 times risk of a negative HPLP (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=3.37, 95% CI 1.49-7.61), which could explain 14.7%-24.4% of the variance (Cox-Snell R 2 =0.147, Nagelkerke R 2 =0.244, P =.004). Conclusions: There is room for improvement in eHealth literacy among university students in Taipei. eHEALS may be used to screen students who require HPLP improvement, thereby providing appropriate eHealth literacy training programs, particularly those targeting evaluation literacy. Additionally, the 3-factor model of the Chinese eHEALS used in this study results in more definite scale content, thus increasing the practicality and applicability of this scale in health-promoting studies.
health care sciences & services,medical informatics