Prevention & lipidsMeta-analysis
Educational methods to improve digital health literacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the EAPC Opti(MI)se initiative
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- PRISMA
- Risk of bias evaluated with ROB 2 and ROBINS-I
- Nine databases searched
Authors' conclusion
Educational interventions, especially in-person, improve DHL among older adults and individuals with chronic disease.
Study context
- Population
- Adults (≥18 years) with chronic diseases or healthy individuals (≥65 years), studies 2000–2421 studies (14 RCTs, 7 pre-post)
- Participants
- 4,195 adults
- Comparison
- Educational interventions to improve digital health literacy
- Outcome
- Digital health literacy (validated tools, e.g. eHEALS)
- Follow-up
- Short-term (T1) and long-term (T2), 3 to 12 months depending on study
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
eHEALS score
eHEALS MD, short-term (T1)
MD 3.30, 95% CI: 1.21-5.40, I² = 0%, P = 0.03
eHEALS MD, long-term (T2)
MD 2.18, 95% CI: 1.42-2.95, I² = 1%, P = 0.007
Further pooled results
Digital health literacy (DHL) by intervention type
- In-person and interactive interventions most effective; app-based and online-only approaches showed limited benefit
- Learning-by-doing interventions had limited impact on DHL but reduced clinical events
Original publication
Educational methods to improve digital health literacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the EAPC Opti(MI)se initiative. Eur J Prev Cardiol. Published 15 July 2025. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf354
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it