4.1 Article

eHealth literacy in older adults with cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 1020-1022

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.12.015

关键词

Digital health literacy; eHealth; Cancer; Health information technology; Age

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R25-CA090314, P30-CA076292]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Recent advances in health monitoring technology have coincided with increases in the number of older adults with cancer, many of whom report difficulty using health information technology (HIT). Previous studies have identified lower electronic health (eHealth) literacy among older adults (>= 65 years) compared to younger adults (<65), but studies in older adults with cancer are limited. The goal of this study was to examine age differences in eHealth literacy and use of technology devices/HIT in patients with cancer, and characterize receptivity towards using home-based HIT to communicate with the oncology care team. Materials and Methods: Patients (n = 198) in a Radiation Oncology clinic were offered an anonymous written questionnaire assessing demographics, eHealth literacy (eHealth Literacy Scale), current use of HIT, and interest in using home-based HIT. Results and Conclusion: Compared to younger patients, older patients had significantly lower eHealth literacy (p < .01), and were less likely to feel confident evaluating health resources on the Internet (p <.01) or knowing how to use the health information found on the Internet to help them (p< .01) or answer health questions (p =.01). Older patients were also less likely than younger patients to have an email address (p = .04), own a smartphone (p < .01), or use the online patient portal (p = .03). Regardless of age, most patients were not opposed to using home-based HIT to communicate with their oncology care team. Future studies on HIT use in older adults with cancer should further evaluate barriers to using HIT and ways to maximize implementation and accessibility. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据