Digital health literacy interventions for older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects and intervention components.
Luyao Xie, Chun To Lam, Diane Levin-Zamir et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined intervention components and effects on digital health literacy among older adults. It included 23 English-language studies involving 3702 participants, of which seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the primary comparative meta-analysis of five RCTs, interventions produced a moderate improvement relative to control conditions (SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.08-0.86). Most interventions addressed knowledge and technological skills. Exploratory analyses suggested greater improvement when interventions combined digital and health-related knowledge and skills, but the authors caution that component-level findings need confirmation.
Key findings
- Five RCTs in the primary meta-analysis showed improved digital health literacy with intervention versus control (SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.08-0.86).
- Across 23 studies involving 3702 older adults, interventions most commonly targeted knowledge and technological skills.
- Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested larger improvements when interventions combined digital and health-related knowledge and skills than when they focused on digital competencies alone.
- No clear subgroup differences emerged by delivery channel, content or resource source, instructional modality, or relational support.
Why it matters
Digital health literacy can affect older adults’ ability to engage with health information and digital services. The review provides comparative evidence that interventions may improve this literacy, while its component mapping highlights approaches for further testing. The findings also distinguish the more promising combination of health-related and digital skills from delivery features for which no clear differences were observed.
What to keep in mind
Only five RCTs contributed to the primary comparative meta-analysis, and substantial heterogeneity warrants caution. Component-level subgroup findings were exploratory and require confirmation in comparative studies.