The Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions in Promoting the Health Literacy of Informal Caregivers: A Systematic Literature Review Protocol

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Digital Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) offer significant opportunities to enhance public health, particularly through their strategic use in promoting health literacy. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review protocol aims to outline the methodological steps necessary to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of digital interventions in improving health literacy among informal caregivers. METHODS: This review will include studies involving adult informal caregivers (≥18 years) undergoing a digital health intervention promoting health literacy. Intervention, effectiveness or efficacy, RCT, quasi-experimental, and observational studies will be eligible. This review will follow the methodology for Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The search strategy will identify studies published in the databases SCOPUS and Web of Science, as well as CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PubMed and gray literature sources. Two in-dependent reviewers will screen the studies, extract data, and critically appraise the selected studies. It is planned that the risk of bias will be assessed using the RoB2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions). From the included studies, data will be extracted on the identification of the study, the aim of the study, characteristics of the population, study method and intervention and control conditions, study variables, and significant results. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the results of the study will guide healthcare professionals and managers in incorporating digital technologies into health literacy programs for informal caregivers. Whenever possible, a statistical meta-analysis will be performed to combine study results. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42024589465.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.