JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Digital health services (DHS) are an increasingly integral part of healthcare services. Understanding users’ abilities to engage with DHS is crucial to ensuring that health technology meets their needs. Assessing digital health literacy (DHL) and health technology readiness can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of DHL in different subgroups.

Objective:

We aimed to assess DHL and health technology readiness among people with epilepsy or multiple sclerosis (MS) and, accordingly, identify and categorize them into distinct subgroups or profiles. In addition, we aimed to investigate respondents’ use of DHS in managing their chronic condition and differences in DHL and health technology readiness between DHS users and non-users.

Methods:

An electronic survey was distributed to people with epilepsy or MS with the help of patient organizations. The questionnaire included the Finnish version of the Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology (READHY). The subgroups of respondents were identified using k-means cluster analysis. Non-parametric tests were used to compare health technology readiness among identified subgroups.

Results:

Respondents (N = 289) had mid- to high-level scores in all the dimensions describing DHL and health technology readiness. Four distinct subgroups emerged with different strengths and weaknesses in their DHL and health technology readiness. The subgroups with high DHL were already the most active users of DHS. In contrast, those with lower confidence in their DHL had higher emotional distress, reported lower confidence in their healthcare provider support, and were significantly less likely to use DHS. In addition, the users had higher DHL and higher confidence in the support they received from their healthcare providers compared to the non-users.

Conclusions:

Identifying subgroups with distinct profiles, characterized by different strengths and weaknesses in their DHL and health technology readiness, is crucial in ensuring the development of responsive and inclusive DHS to meet the needs of all users, particularly those requiring support in using DHS. In addition, the non-users had lower confidence in the support they received from their healthcare provider than the users. Further research is needed to understand this difference.