Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults.
Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.1880
复制
发表时间：
2011-11-03
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Xie B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Xie B
老年人的健康和计算机素养普遍较低，这使得他们很难在技术越来越多地应用于医疗保健的电子医疗时代发挥良好作用。对于提高老年人电子健康素养的有效干预措施和策略知之甚少。本研究的目的是检验理论驱动的电子健康素养干预对老年人的影响。实验设计是 2 × 2 混合因子设计，学习方法（协作；个人主义）作为参与者之间的变量，测量时间（前；后）作为参与者内的变量。 2011 年 2 月至 5 月期间，共有 146 名 56-91 岁的老年人（平均年龄 69.99，标准差 8.12）参与了这项研究。干预措施包括为期两周的学习如何使用国立卫生研究院的 SeniorHealth.gov 网站获取可靠的健康信息。干预是在公共图书馆进行的。参与者被随机分配到任一实验条件（合作：n = 72；个人：n = 74）。总体而言，从干预前到干预后，参与者的知识、技能和电子健康素养功效均显着提高（所有情况下 P < .001；效果大小 >0.8，统计功效为 1.00，即使在所有情况下处于 0.01 水平）。在控制基线差异时，没有发现学习方法对计算机/网络知识、技能或电子医疗素养功效有显着的主效应。因此，协作学习与个人主义学习在影响学习结果方面没有什么不同。没有发现学习方法和测量时间之间存在显着的交互作用。基于性别、对同伴的熟悉程度或先前的计算机经验的小组组成对学习结果没有显着的主效应或交互效应。无论使用何种具体学习方法，参与者对干预措施都抱有极其积极的态度，并报告说干预措施使他们在参与自己的医疗保健方面发生了积极的变化。研究结果提供了强有力的证据，表明本研究中测试的电子健康素养干预措施，无论使用何种具体学习方法，从干预前到干预后，知识、技能和电子健康素养功效均得到显着提高，受到参与者的积极认可，并导致他们自己的医疗保健发生积极变化。协作学习在影响学习结果方面与个人主义学习没有什么不同，这表明先前广泛报道的协作相对于个人主义学习的优势可能不容易应用于非正式环境中的老年人群，尽管有几个混杂因素可能促成了这一发现（即研究样本中大部分缺乏经验的计算机用户组成、潜在的教师效应和上限效应）。在得出更确定的结论之前，还需要进一步研究。这些发现为成人学习、社会相互依赖理论和健康素养方面的文献做出了贡献。
Older adults generally have low health and computer literacies, making it challenging for them to function well in the eHealth era where technology is increasingly being used in health care. Little is known about effective interventions and strategies for improving the eHealth literacy of the older population. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a theory-driven eHealth literacy intervention for older adults. The experimental design was a 2 × 2 mixed factorial design with learning method (collaborative; individualistic) as the between-participants variable and time of measurement (pre; post) as the within-participants variable. A total of 146 older adults aged 56–91 (mean 69.99, SD 8.12) participated in this study during February to May 2011. The intervention involved 2 weeks of learning about using the National Institutes of Health’s SeniorHealth.gov website to access reliable health information. The intervention took place at public libraries. Participants were randomly assigned to either experimental condition (collaborative: n = 72; individualistic: n = 74). Overall, participants’ knowledge, skills, and eHealth literacy efficacy all improved significantly from pre to post intervention (P < .001 in all cases; effect sizes were >0.8 with statistical power of 1.00 even at the .01 level in all cases). When controlling for baseline differences, no significant main effect of the learning method was found on computer/Web knowledge, skills, or eHealth literacy efficacy. Thus, collaborative learning did not differ from individualistic learning in affecting the learning outcomes. No significant interaction effect of learning method and time of measurement was found. Group composition based on gender, familiarity with peers, or prior computer experience had no significant main or interaction effect on the learning outcomes. Regardless of the specific learning method used, participants had overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward the intervention and reported positive changes in participation in their own health care as a result of the intervention. The findings provide strong evidence that the eHealth literacy intervention tested in this study, regardless of the specific learning method used, significantly improved knowledge, skills, and eHealth literacy efficacy from pre to post intervention, was positively perceived by participants, and led to positive changes in their own health care. Collaborative learning did not differ from individualistic learning in affecting the learning outcomes, suggesting the previously widely reported advantages of collaborative over individualistic learning may not be easily applied to the older population in informal settings, though several confounding factors might have contributed to this finding (ie, the largely inexperienced computer user composition of the study sample, potential instructor effect, and ceiling effect). Further research is necessary before a more firm conclusion can be drawn. These findings contribute to the literatures on adult learning, social interdependence theory, and health literacy.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1093/geronb/62.special_issue_1.5
发表时间：
2007-06-01
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Elias, Jeffrey W.;Wagster, Molly V.
通讯作者：
Wagster, Molly V.
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
ANDERSSON, J;RONNBERG, J
通讯作者：
RONNBERG, J
DOI：
10.1093/geronj/47.4.p250
发表时间：
1992-07-01
期刊：
JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY
影响因子：
--
作者：
JAY, GM;WILLIS, SL
通讯作者：
WILLIS, SL
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Bylund, Carma L.;Sabee, Christina M.;Sanford, Amy Aldridge
通讯作者：
Sanford, Amy Aldridge
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Asla, T;Williamson, K;Mills, J
通讯作者：
Mills, J