Article
Interest in digital public health applications and perceived eHealth literacy: results of a nationwide survey in Germany
Search Medline for
Authors
-
Karina Karolina De Santis
- Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie – BIPS, Abteilung Prävention und Evaluation, Deutschland; Leibniz Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland
-
Tina Jahnel
- Leibniz Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland; University of Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland
-
Elida Sina
- Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie – BIPS, Abteilung Prävention und Evaluation, Deutschland; Leibniz Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland
-
Julian Wienert
- Leibniz Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland; IU International University of Applied Sciences, Deutschland
-
Hajo Zeeb
- Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie – BIPS, Abteilung Prävention und Evaluation, Deutschland; Leibniz Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland
| Published: | August 30, 2022 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Background/research question: The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the development of digital technologies with various health applications. This study aimed to compare the interest in digital public health applications and perceived eHealth literacy in users relative to non-users of digital technologies for health-related purposes.
Methods: A random sample of 1,014 Internet users living in Germany participated in a nationwide survey on digitisation and health conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviews in October 2020. Participants with complete data (n=911) were classified as users (n=537) or non-users (n=374) of digital technologies for health-related purposes. Interest in digital public health applications and the perceived eHealth literacy (measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale, eHEALS) were compared between both groups using the standardised mean difference scores (Cohen’s d for independent samples) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
Results: Both groups were comparable based on age, gender and education, but users reported higher household income than non-users. Relative to non-users, the users were moderately more confident that digitisation will be important for healthcare, health promotion and maintenance in the future, more interested in prevention apps and reported higher perceived eHealth literacy (moderate mean group differences of d=.42-.60). More users than non-users downloaded the COVID-19 contact tracing app (OR=2.1 [95%CI: 1.6-2.8]) and reported using digital technologies to support physical activity (OR=5.1 [3.4-7.5]). Relative to non-users, the users were slightly more confident that they encounter false information on the COVID-19 pandemic online and that they are able to recognise such false information (small mean group differences of d=.14-.22).
Conclusion: Users of digital technologies for health-related purposes in Germany are interested in digital public health applications for disease prevention and health maintenance. The use of such digital technologies is associated with higher perceived digital literacy and less trust towards the online information on the COVID-19 pandemic. While wealthier members of the general population are more likely to use digital public health applications, it remains unclear if and how they benefit from such use. The motivations for using digital technologies in the context of public health should be further investigated. Although digital technologies are widely available, their effectiveness requires further evaluation.
Competing interests: None. Funding: Stiftung Bremer Wertpapierbörse
