Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of MedicineProblems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of Medicine0869-866X2412-2106Joint-Stock Company Chicot156910.32687/0869-866X-2024-32-6-1314-1320НеопределенThe online literacy of Russian citizen in issues of health information: psychometric characteristics of Russian version
of eHEALSMaksimenkoAleksander AleksandrovichMaximenko.Al@gmail.comZolotarevaAlena Anatolievnaalena.a.zolotareva@gmail.comThe Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education “The National Research University “Higher School of Economics””, 101000, Moscow, Russia091220243262704202527042025Copyright © 2025,2025<p>Nowadays, online environment is the main source of health information. The purpose of the study was twofold and supposed, firstly, adaptation of Russian version of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), and secondly, analysis of relationship between eHEALS scores and indications of critical thinking and phenomena of cyber environment (doom-scrolling, cyberchondria and social networks dependence) among Russians. The sampling consisted of 1,025 respondents. Besides eHEALS, such questionnaires as Doomscrolling Scale, Cyberchondria Scale, Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale and Thinking Style Questionnaire were applied. The results of data factorization revealed one-factor structure of questionnaire. The high values of Cronbach -coefficient ( = 0.929) and MacDonalds -coefficient ( = 0.930) confirmed inner consistency of adapted scale. The total indicator according eHEALS was positively correlated with general health index, indicators of doomscrolling, cyberchondria, social networks dependence and analytical thinking style. The negative correlation was established indicators of synthetic and idealistic thinking styles. The online literacy in health information issues was related to female gender, but had no dependencies with age of respondents. The residents of Moscow and other megalopolises had higher indicators of online literacy in matters of health information as compared with residents of Oblast and district centers. The psychometric analysis of Russian version of the eHEALS confirmed its psychometric validity.</p>eHEALSdoomscrollingcyberchondriacritical thinkinghealth informationmedical informationinformed patienteHEALSШкала онлайн-грамотности в вопросах информации о здоровьедумскроллингкиберхондриякритическое мышлениеинформация о здоровьемедицинская информацияинформированный пациент[Maklyuen M. Understanding Media: External Extensions of Man. Moscow: KANON-press-C, Kuchkovo pole; 2003. 464 p. (in Russian).][Deyneka O. S., Maksimenko A. A., Zabelina E. V. The results of the adaptation of the diagnostic tool for changes in the eating behavior of Russians during the pandemic caused by COVID-19. Psihologiya. Journal of HSE. 2022;19(3):474–93 (in Russian).][Maksimenko A. A., Deyneka O. S., Mortikova I. A. Infodemic doomscrolling and the psychological well-being of Russians. Obshchestvo: sociologiya, psihologiya, pedagogika. 2022;(12):129–136. doi: 10.24158/spp.2022.12.20 (in Russian).][Maksimenko A. A., Deyneka O. S. Infodemic doomscrolling and problems of sexual satisfaction in women. Psihiatriya, psihoterapiya i klinicheskaya psihologiya. 2023;14(4):400–10 (in Russian).][Kastel's M. The Information Age: Economy, society and culture. Moscow HSE; 2000. 608 p. (in Russian).][Zhohud' R. V. Fake News in the Post-Truth era: functional aspects. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Filologiya. 2019;(3):101–4 (in Russian).][Durodolu O. O., Ibenne S. K. The fake news infodemic vs information literacy. Library Hi Tech News. 2020;37(7):13–4.][Scharkow M., Mangold F., Stier S., Breuer J. How social network sites and other online intermediaries increase exposure to news. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2020;117:2761–3.][Williams Kirkpatrick A. The spread of fake science: Lexical concreteness, proximity, misinformation sharing, and the moderating role of subjective knowledge. Pub. Understand. Sci. 2020;30(1):55–74.][George M. The importance of social media content for teens’ risks for selfharm. J. Adolesc. Health. 2019;65(1):9–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.04.022][Troya M., Babatunde O. O., Polidano K., et al. Self-harm in older adults: a systematic review. Brit. J. Psychiatry. 2019;214(4):186–200. doi: 10.1192/ bjp.2019.1112][Maksimenko A. A., Zolotareva A. A. Risks of online search for health information: adaptation of the OHISS in the Russian sample. Klinicheskaya i special'naya psihologiya = Clinical Psychology and Special Education. 2024;(4):12–8 (in Russian).][How technology changes everything (and nothing) in psychology. 2008 annual report of the APA Policy and Planning Board. Am. Psychologist. 2009;64(5):454–63.][Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizat. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 1991;50:179–211.][Soldatova G. V., Nestik T. A., Rasskazova E. I., Zotova E. Yu. Digital competence of Russian teenagers and parents: results of an All-Russian study. Moscow; 2013 (in Russian).][Ratzan S. C. Web 2.0 and health communication. J. Health Commun. 2011;(16):1–2. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.601967][Fox S., Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Pew Research Internet Project. 2013. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/][Ardyanto T. Dealing with Doctor-Patient-Internet Online Relationship: a Doctor's Perspective. Available at: http://tonang.staff.uns.ac.id/ files/2009/06/dealing-with-doctor-patient-internet-relationship-tonang-2006.pdf][Greene J., Hibbard J. H. Why does patient activation matter? An examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J. Gen. Internet Med. 2012;27:520–6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1931-2][Barello S., Triberti S., Graffigna G., Libreri C., Serino S., Hibbard J., Riva G. eHealth for patient engagement: A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2016;6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02013][Norman C. D., Skinner H. A. eHEALS: The eHealth literacy scale. J. Med. Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27][Wångdahl J., Jaensson M., Dahlberg K., Nilsson U. The Swedish Version of the Electronic Health Literacy Scale: Prospective Psychometric Evaluation Study Including Thresholds Levels. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(2):e16316. doi: 10.2196/16316][Gentizon J., Hirt J., Jaques C., Lang P. O., Mabire C. Instruments assessing medication literacy in adult recipients of care: A systematic review of measurement properties. Int. J. Nurs. Studies. 2021;113:103785. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103785][Lee J., Lee E. H., Chae D. eHealth Literacy Instruments: Systematic Review of Measurement Properties. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e30644. doi: 10.2196/30644][Marsall M., Engelmann G., Skoda E. M., Teufel M., Bäuerle A. Measuring Electronic Health Literacy: Development, Validation, and Test of Measurement Invariance of a Revised German Version of the eHealth Literacy Scale. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022;24(2):e28252. doi: 10.2196/28252][Verma R., Saldanha C., Ellis U., Sattar S., Haase K. R. eHealth literacy among older adults living with cancer and their caregivers: A scoping review. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2022;13(5):555–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.11.008][Arcury T. A., Sandberg J. C., Melius K. P., Quandt S. A., Leng X., Latulipe C., Miller D. P. Jr., Smith D. A., Bertoni A. G. Older Adult Internet Use and eHealth Literacy. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2020;39(2): 141–50. doi: 10.1177/0733464818807468][Kim K., Shin S., Kim S., Lee E. The Relation Between eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023;25:e40778. doi: 10.2196/40778][Deyneka O. S., Maksimenko A. A., Zabelina E. V., Garkusha S. A. The results of the adaptation of the short version of the technique of the severity of cyberchondria in the Russian sample. Psihologicheskij zhurnal. 2023;44(1):101–12. doi: 10.31857/S020595920024365-7 (in Russian).][Shubin S. B. Psychological features of teenagers' digital activity on the example of social networks: a review of foreign studies. Pedagogika i psihologiya obrazovaniya. 2020;(3):173–91. doi: 10.31862/2500-297X-2020-3-173-191 (in Russian).][Harrison A. F., Brainson R. M. The art of thinking. N.Y.: Berkley books; 1984. P. 189–93.][Alekseev A. A., Gromova L. A. Don't get me wrong, or a book about how to find your own style of thinking, effectively use intellectual resources and gain mutual understanding with people. St. Petersburg: Ekonomicheskaya shkola; 1993. 352 p. (in Russian).][Kenny D. A., Kaniskan B., McCoach D. B. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol. Meth. Res. 2015;44(3):486–507. doi: 10.1177/0049124114543236][Burzyńska J., Rękas M., Januszewicz P. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) among Polish social media users. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19(7):4067. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19074067][Ma Z., Wu M. The psychometric properties of the Chinese eHealth Literacy Scale (C-eHEALS) in a Chinese rural population: Cross-sectional validation study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019;21(10):e15720. doi: 10.2196/15720][Lin C. Y., Broström A., Griffiths M. D., Pakpour A. H. Psychometric evaluation of the Persian eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) among elder Iranians with heart failure. Evaluat. Health Prof. 2020;43(4):222–9. doi: 10.1177/0163278719827997]