Search

BackgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly being adopted globally to address various public health issues. DHIs can be categorized according to four main types of technology: mobile based, web based, telehealth, and electronic health records. In 2006, Norman and Skinner introduced the eHealth literacy model, encompassing six domains of skills and abilities (basic, health, information, scientific, media, and computer) needed to effectively understand, process, and act on health-related information. Little is known about whether these domains are assessed or accounted for in DHIs. ObjectiveThis study aims to explore how DHIs assess and evaluate the eHealth literacy model, describe which health conditions are addressed, and which technologies are used. MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of the literature on DHIs, based on randomized controlled trial design and reporting the assessment of any domain of the eHealth literacy model. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. A duplicate selection and data extraction process was performed; we charted the results according to the country of origin, health condition, technology used, and eHealth literacy domain. ResultsWe identified 131 unique DHIs conducted in 26 different countries between 2001 and 2020. Most DHIs were conducted in English-speaking countries (n=81, 61.8%), delivered via the web (n=68, 51.9%), and addressed issues related to noncommunicable diseases (n=57, 43.5%) or mental health (n=26, 19.8%). None of the interventions assessed all six domains of the eHealth literacy model. Most studies focused on the domain of health literacy (n=96, 73.2%), followed by digital (n=19, 14.5%), basic and media (n=4, 3%), and information and scientific literacy (n=1, 0.7%). Of the 131 studies, 7 (5.3%) studies covered both health and digital literacy. ConclusionsAlthough many selected DHIs assessed health or digital literacy, no studies comprehensively evaluated all domains of the eHealth literacy model; this evidence might be overlooking important factors that can mediate or moderate the effects of these interventions. Future DHIs should comprehensively assess the eHealth literacy model while developing or evaluating interventions to understand how and why interventions can be effective.

Background: Oman has prioritised enhanced efforts for supporting evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), including establishing a knowledge translation department in the Omani Ministry of Health (MOH). Aim and objective: Our aim was to gather insights to guide the process of activating this department. Methods: We conducted a document review and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders who are familiar with the Omani system. Findings: We conducted 17 interviews, which highlighted that policymakers in Oman use multiple sources of data and evidence to inform policymaking about health systems. However, several challenges to using evidence were identified, including low quality and limited availability of local evidence, system fragmentation, low interest in research, and lack of skills, capacity and time for finding, synthesising and using research evidence. Five possible activities for the department were refined with participants: building capacity, finding evidence, sparking action, embedding supports, and evaluating innovations. Participants viewed each of these activities as equally important and they should be pursued simultaneously. However, when asked to rank the most important option, participants identified capacity building as the most important to enable cultural changes needed within the MOH. the Omani MOH. Fully operationalising the department will require convening a codesign process to reach consensus on the scope of the activities undertaken by the department. Implementation will also require capitalising on the relevant experience of highly qualified staff and existing infrastructure as well as continuing to foster a supportive climate for EIPM.

The objective of this paper is to conduct comparative analysis about the views and practices of policy makers and researchers on the use of health systems evidence in policy making in selected Eastern Mediterranean countries. We analysed data from two self-reported surveys, one targeted at policy makers and the other at researchers. Results show a wide gap between policy makers and researchers when comparing perceptions on factors influencing the policy-making process and use of evidence in health policy making. Findings highlight specific areas for undertaking knowledge translation activities and implementing interventions to narrow the gap between policy makers and researchers.