Pierre Pluye1, Vera Granikov2, Virginie Paquet3, Francesca Frati4, Fabio Balli5, Jiamin Dai, PhD6, Reem El Sherif7, Quan Nha Hong, OT, PhD8, Roland M. Grad9
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.1756
Volume 114, Number 1: 38-45
Received 04 2025; Accepted 10 2025
ABSTRACT
Background:Community-dwelling patients with complex care needs (hereafter “patients”) seek information to choose optimal care. However, patients with low ehealth literacy often have difficulty finding trustworthy, easy-to-understand information. Improving their ehealth literacy can lead to multiple positive health outcomes. This study aimed to describe patients' perceptions of the usability and potential impacts of a web-based, ehealth literacy–oriented intervention.
Case Description:To support patients in finding, appraising, and using online health information (the three core principles of ehealth literacy) we developed the Online Health Information Aid (OHIA), which includes a website, an educational video, and a game. An evaluation was conducted with five patients who received the intervention. Pre-intervention (Day 1) and post-intervention (Day 30) data were collected. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. Quantitative and qualitative results were compared in a joint display. Participants included three women and two men aged 46 to 71 years (mean age: 62) with two to 11 chronic health conditions (mean: 5) and two to 20 medications (mean: 10). Participants found the website usable (e.g., “good tool”). For the video, usability scores were high (67%-96%; mean: 79%) with positive comments (e.g., “good and helpful”). However, the game's usability was lower (40%-78%; mean: 60%), and comments were negative (e.g., “complex and not readable”). For three participants, ehealth literacy levels (n=2) and/or knowledge for appraising online health information (n=2) increased post-intervention. However, they did not perceive any impact of the intervention.
Conclusion:These results suggest that the OHIA intervention, specifically the website and the video, is a promising approach to improving ehealth literacy among people with lower education, and a family income below or around the poverty line, including patients with complex care needs.
Keywords: Consumer health information; ehealth literacy; literacy program; online health information.
Patients with complex care needs (PCCN) often navigate fragmented care systems and face additional challenges when trying to access and assess reliable health information online. PCCN living in the community face multiple issues (e.g., multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health, social vulnerability) and barriers to optimal use of health and social services (e.g., limited awareness of available options, services, and treatments, paired with low motivation or confidence) [1–4]. Finding, evaluating, and using online health information is another challenge. As is the case for most, many PCCN have difficulty distinguishing trustworthy from misleading health information, and their information needs often remain unmet due to limited time and unclear communication from health professionals [5].
Online health information is generally associated with positive outcomes such as improved health literacy, empowerment, self-care, engagement in healthcare, quality of life, as well as decreased worries [6–12]. Being informed can decrease unnecessary calls and visits to health care professionals and optimize service utilization [12, 13]. Trustworthy information that is easy to read or listen to, for example narrated educational videos, can help reduce health information disparities by addressing gaps in access among marginalized groups [14]. In contrast, misleading information can increase anxiety, deteriorate relationships with health professionals, and cause unnecessary emergency department visits [15–20].
As the proportion of PCCN increases with the aging of the population and the rising prevalence of chronic disease, these individuals continue to face difficult decisions, unmet care needs, fragmented care, inadequate quality of care, and poor health outcomes [21–24]. Moreover, they and their caregivers have greater health information needs to support decision-making about treatment, manage behavioral and psychosocial issues, address concerns about quality of life and autonomy, and navigate the complexities of health and social services [4]. More than half of PCCN have a low level of health literacy across the 18 OECD countries. For example, in Canada, this includes about 60% of PCCN [25]. They face difficulties finding, evaluating, and using online health information that is easy to read, listen to, or watch [26].
Several randomized controlled trials showed that web-based interventions can improve health literacy on specific topics, and health education videos and games can improve the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of people with low literacy [27–33]. Videos are more acceptable in a low literacy population and may help reduce informational inequities related to health literacy [34]. Moreover, health education games can improve motivation, engagement, attitude, and learning [35, 36]. However, more research is needed to evaluate the effects of interventions designed to improve ehealth literacy among PCCN with low literacy levels, including the effectiveness of web-based tools such as videos and games for this population.
Our team implemented an educational intervention that includes a website called Online Health Information Aid (OHIA) that promotes health literacy skills, accompanied by a video and a game, which aim to promote the use of the website [37]. Overall, this three-component intervention aims to improve ehealth literacy (i.e., skills and confidence for finding, assessing, and using trustworthy health information online). In this case report, we examine the usability of the intervention from the perspective of community-dwelling PCCN, explore the intervention's potential impact, and assess the feasibility of an experimental evaluation.
Our intervention has three components: a website, an educational video, and a game. The purpose of the website is to promote users' (a) ehealth literacy skills for finding, evaluating, and using trustworthy online health information (i.e., knowledge), (b) trust in this information (i.e., attitude), and (c) the use of this information in clinical encounters (i.e., behavior). The website was developed using a user-centered approach and is based on research evidence from a systematic literature review and a qualitative research study [20, 38, 39]. The website provides actionable recommendations and a list of trustworthy sources, in English and in French.
The educational video is a 6-minute animation integrated into the site's homepage, available in English and in French. Its development was informed by international best practice guidelines [40–43] and drew on the Theory of Reasoned Action [44]. This theory proposes that behavior is shaped by a person's knowledge, attitudes, perceived social norms, and sense of control, and it can be applied in studies of ehealth literacy and educational videos. The animated character in the video presents the sections of the OHIA website (i.e., core elements of ehealth literacy) and illustrates how the website can be useful.
The game aims to help users distinguish trustworthy from misleading information. Players are presented with several types of information and are asked to rank them on a scale from 0 (potentially misleading source and content) to 5 (trustworthy source and content). Informed by research evidence, the game uses engaging stories to share knowledge, presents problems for players to solve, and encourages repeated play [35].
After developing and implementing the OHIA website-video-game intervention, we performed a two-step evaluation to explore its usability and potential impact. These explorations allowed us to assess usability, a critical determinant of impact, as non-usable solutions are unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes. The study was approved by the McGill University Research Ethics Office.
Through patient organizations and our networks, we recruited five PCCN who met two criteria: (1) a high school education or less, and (2) a family income below or around the poverty line, which is a combination associated with lower levels of ehealth literacy [45]. Although seemingly small, this number of participants is considered sufficient to uncover major flaws and over 80% of usability issues [46–49], as well as to explore a phenomenon and formulate hypotheses [50].
Data collection and analysis were guided by a conceptual framework that describes four levels of information outcomes [39]. Level 1, situational relevance, refers to whether a person finds the information relevant in their specific context. For example, PCCN will continue to read or listen to a webpage if it matches their needs but skip it if not. Level 2, cognitive impact, describes positive or negative cognitive effects of relevant information. For example, PCCN can either learn something new or not understand the information. Relevant information with positive cognitive impact is more likely to be used. Level 3, information use, includes conceptual, legitimating, symbolic, or instrumental uses. For instance, PCCN may use information to decide whether to consult a professional (instrumental) and share it with them (symbolic). However, information use does not necessarily lead to health outcomes. Level 4, health outcomes, refers to positive or negative effects on health and well-being, such as feeling reassured or more anxious after using the information.
Our evaluation followed a convergent mixed methods design [51]. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in two steps: Step 1 (Day 1) and Step 2, one month later (Day 30). Our quantitative question was: To what extent can the intervention contribute to improving the level of ehealth literacy? Our qualitative question was: From the participants’ perspective, what are the usability and potential impacts of the intervention? All participants participated in both steps. Each participant received a compensation of $100 Canadian.
On Day 1 (Step 1), we collected baseline quantitative data (see Appendix 1 for the tools and measures used), including sociodemographic information, comorbidities and medication use, ehealth literacy levels, and knowledge to distinguish trustworthy from misleading health information online. Questions related to health literacy were based on the Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI), a validated tool that measures self-reported skills in computer operation, navigation, information searching, evaluating reliability, assessing relevance, creating content, and protecting privacy [52]. Questions assessing knowledge to distinguish trustworthy from misleading information were derived from a systematic literature review on trust and credibility in web-based health information seeking [53]. After the intervention, which involved visiting the website, watching the video, and playing the game, we also collected usability measures. Finally, we gathered qualitative data through semi-structured online interviews, which lasted an average of 82 minutes (range: 63-100 minutes).
On Day 30 (Step 2), to explore the potential impact of the intervention, we collected data about change in ehealth literacy and knowledge to distinguish trustworthy from misleading health information. During the interviews, a research professional asked each participant if the intervention influenced their information searches performed during the last month, if they experienced any benefits for themselves or their caregivers, and perceived risks or negative consequences (e.g., anxiety). The interviewer also asked what participants liked about the intervention and what could be improved. Each interview lasted on average 54 minutes (range: 41-75 minutes).
The statistical analysis of quantitative data was descriptive and exploratory. The qualitative content analysis focused on usability of the intervention, its potential to improve ehealth literacy, and the influence of the video and the game on using the website. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two researchers. To compare Steps 1 and 2, quantitative and qualitative results were displayed in a single table, juxtaposing quantitative results on sociodemographic characteristics, contextual factors, ehealth literacy scores, and usability, with qualitative findings, thereby enhancing the interpretation of potential patterns.
Participants included were three women and two men, French-speaking, aged 46 to 71 years (mean = 62 years), with two to 11 chronic health conditions each (mean = 5), including chronic pain (n=5), diabetes type 2 (n=3) and hypertension (n=2). These problems required two medications per day for two participants, 10 to 15 for two participants, and about 20 for one participant. For three participants, these conditions limited their daily activities. Four participants reported significant problems in the past month such as health problems (n=4), social problems (n=2), and problems with health services (n=2). Three participants were retired and two were unemployed. All five participants were living with a partner. Three participants reported high social support (77-97%), and two reported moderate support (60-63%).
All participants had a computer, Internet access, and a tablet; four had a smartphone. Two participants reported that they use online health information with their family physician and other medical professionals. For example, one of them (P2) described searching for medication-related information and sometimes reading patient forums: “The Internet has been extraordinarily helpful in keeping me informed, talking with my doctors, and being less anxious.” All participants received the three components of the intervention (i.e., OHIA website, video, and game), which they evaluated as detailed below.
Qualitative findings and quantitative results are presented in Table 1. All five participants found that the OHIA website and educational video were more usable than the game. Participants described the website as “good”, “comprehensive”, “helpful”, “friendly”, and “pleasant”. The video was described as “excellent”, “good”, “helpful”, with “nice role-playing situations”. Regarding the game, all interviews revealed negative comments: “too complicated”, “too fast”, “incomprehensible”, “unreadable”, “confusing”, and “uninteresting.” The mean usability scores of the video and the game corroborated the interviews. No participant reported intervention-related worries or stress.
Table 1The OHIA intervention: Usability of the three components
| Participants | Website usability | Video usability | Score (%) | Game usability | Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interview | Interview | Interview | |||
| P1 | “Good tool with tips; quite comprehensive” | “Good; helpful; exemplar” | 67 | Complicated, too fast, characters too small: “you can't see anything.” | 40 |
| P2 | “Well done; this will help; this is 95% what I am doing” | “Difficult to find” | 82 | Complicated, difficult, characters too small: “boxes hard to open.” | 64 |
| P3 | “Good; with answers to our questions” | “Little slow beginning” | 69 | Complicated, incomprehensible, uninteresting: “unreadable, too much text.” | 44 |
| P4 | “Well done and friendly; this helps to understand” | “Great introduction and scenario” | 96 | Uninteresting: “difficult to see, too many indications” (instructions) | 78 |
| P5 | “Very well done; easy and agreeable; well explained” | “Excellent, great pictures, well explained, but narration a little bit too slow” | 82 | Complicated, difficult, uninteresting: “statements too small, confusing game” | 76 |
| Mean score | - | - | 79.2 | - | 60.4 |
Quantitative results are presented in Table 2. For two participants (P1 and P5), the intervention may have improved their ehealth literacy score (+14% and +16% respectively). For two participants (P1 and P3), the intervention may have improved knowledge to distinguish trustworthy from misleading health information (+23% and +41% respectively). These three participants had lower pre-intervention scores, indicating room for improvement.
Table 2Potential impacts of the OHIA intervention (website, video, game)
| Participants | ehealth literacy score (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | Difference | |
| P1 | 71 | 85 | +14 |
| P2 | 86 | 81 | −5 |
| P3 | 71 | 77 | +6 |
| P4 | 80 | 86 | +6 |
| P5 | 66 | 82 | +16 |
| Participants | Knowledge score (%): capacity to distinguish trustworthy from misleading information sources | ||
| Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | Difference | |
| P1 | 52 | 75 | +23 |
| P2 | 71 | 67 | −4 |
| P3 | 17 | 58 | +41 |
| P4 | 96 | 92 | −4 |
| P5 | 77 | 79 | +2 |
Comparing quantitative results and qualitative findings revealed valuable insights; divergence was observed in four cases. Three participants improved their scores of ehealth literacy and knowledge for appraising information between the pre- and post-intervention period (Day 1 and 30) but did not qualitatively perceive any impact linked to the intervention (P1, P3 and P5). One participant's score did not improve, but they felt their ability to appraise information had improved after the intervention (P2). In contrast, qualitative findings supported the quantitative results for one participant who neither improved their score nor perceived any impact from the intervention (P4).
Our intervention evaluation results are both encouraging and informative. First, regarding usability, participants unanimously praised the OHIA website and video, suggesting only minor improvements. In contrast, they all found the game difficult to use, highlighting the need for further user-centered design iterations. Second, three participants with lower pre-intervention scores (i.e., ehealth literacy and knowledge to appraise information) improved their scores one month after the intervention. This finding leads to the following hypothesis for future research: in a population with low ehealth literacy, the OHIA website and video can improve ehealth literacy, and knowledge to distinguish trustworthy from misleading health information. The divergence between the quantitative and qualitative results may be attributed to differences between individual perspectives and empirical measurements.
Our results build on existing literature that shows that online health information and web-based literacy-oriented interventions are typically beneficial to patients and caregivers by suggesting that this is the case for PCCN. The OHIA website and video may help patients, health professionals and health information professionals. Patients and caregivers can use the website and video as needed and share this information with their entourage, as demonstrated by two participants (P4, P5). Health professionals can use the OHIA website and video to find information for their patients and encourage their patients to use it. Health information professionals can recommend these resources to their users and incorporate them in educational interventions. The OHIA website and video have been referenced in academic library guides at McGill University and Université de Montréal, which indicates that these resources are accessible to a broad audience, including individuals with higher literacy levels.
Our results show that it is possible to improve ehealth literacy among people with lower education, and a family income below or around the poverty line, including PCCNs. In a growing population of PCCN, even a small improvement can have a meaningful impact. Such gains are important because ehealth literacy constitutes a major determinant of health and is the best predictor of health after smoking, ahead of low income and low education [54–56]. Low ehealth literacy has well-documented negative effects on care, health outcomes, and service use, contributing to higher healthcare utilization, increased costs, and greater health inequities [7, 25, 55, 57–77].
Multiple types of interventions are promising for improving ehealth literacy [33], and the OHIA website and video can contribute. Future research can assess whether the OHIA website and video can help improve ehealth literacy in the general population, and especially how to think critically about the information they encounter. The OHIA website and video can play a particularly important role in the current context of rapidly expanding, targeted, and convincing AI-generated mis- and disinformation, which often spreads with insufficient or no regulatory guardrails [78, 79].
Our sample may have included ‘ideal’ individuals who are well-positioned to manage their care using trustworthy information that reassures them, as well as individuals who are inclined to resist care [80]. This heterogeneity could have enhanced the potential positive effects of the intervention relative to those that may be observed in a statistically representative sample of PCCN with uniformly low eHealth literacy. Nevertheless, this diversity enabled us to compare participants with lower and higher ehealth literacy, generating valuable insights.
In addition, two key limitations of case reports are the inability to statistically generalize findings and to attribute observed outcomes directly to the intervention. For example, the measured impacts might have resulted from a mere measurement effect or a test-retest effect [81]. Despite these limitations, case reports have merit when they suggest plausible hypotheses that can be tested in future research [82].
In today's context of rapidly advancing generative AI tools, and given the complexity of their needs, it is essential to continue supporting PCCN in acquiring trustworthy evidence-based information, thinking critically, and avoiding misleading content through literacy-oriented programs and educational interventions. The OHIA website and video have the potential to improve ehealth literacy for PCCN and the broader public, and should be promoted through varied media channels, with targeted outreach to health information professionals.
Pierre Pluye led the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, supervision, and preparation of the original draft, which all authors reviewed and edited. All authors contributed to the study conception and methodology. Virginie Paquet was responsible for data collection, formal analysis, and project administration. Vera Granikov prepared the revised version of the manuscript. Virginie Paquet, Francesca Frati, Jiamin Dai, Reem El Sherif, Quan Nha Hong, and Roland Grad also contributed to writing—review and editing of the final manuscript.
Note: The authors would like to honour the memory of the late Pierre Pluye, whose vision, leadership, and dedication shaped this project and continue to have an invaluable impact on our work. He is deeply missed.
Due to the small number of participants and participants’ privacy concerns, data could be shared only after the principal investigator's rigorous revision of the justifications and circumstances, and the obtention of a formal agreement of the Research Ethics Office of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences of McGill University, and ultimately the approbation of the participants themselves.
1. Schaink AK, Kuluski K, Lyons RF, Fortin M, Jadad AR, Upshur R, et al. A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: Offering a unifying framework. J Comorb. 2012;2(1):1–9.
2. Loeb DF, Bayliss EA, Binswanger IA, Candrian C, deGruy FV. Primary care physician perceptions on caring for complex patients with medical and mental illness. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):945–52.
3. Safford MM, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI. Patient complexity: More than comorbidity - the vector model of complexity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(Suppl 3):382–90.
4. Bujold M, Pluye P, Légaré F. Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: A systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):279.
5. Okan O, Bauer U, Levin-Zamir D, Pinheiro P, Sørensen K. International handbook of health literacy: Research, practice and policy across the life-span. Bristol, UK: Policy Press; 2019. 622 p.
6. Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, English TM, Lapane KL. Access to care and use of the internet to search for health information: Results from the us national health interview survey. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(4):e106.
7. Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J, Thompson JA, Gazmararian JA, Huang J. Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(14):1503–9.
8. Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(1):37–52.
9. Erdem SA, Harrison-Walker LJ. The role of the internet in physician-patient relationships: The issue of trust. Bus Horiz. 2006;49(5):387–93.
10. Prescott J, Mackie L. “You sort of go down a rabbit hole... You’re just going to keep on searching”: A qualitative study of searching online for pregnancy-related information during pregnancy. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):e194.
11. Smith S, Duman M. The state of consumer health information: An overview. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(4):260–78.
12. Suziedelyte A. How does searching for health information on the internet affect individuals' demand for health care services? Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(10):1828–35.
13. Korenstein D, Falk R, Howell EA, Bishop T, Keyhani S. Overuse of health care services in the united states: An understudied problem. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(2):171–8.
14. Pluye P, El Sherif R, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Turcotte E, Schuster T, Bartlett G, et al. Outcomes of equity-oriented, web-based parenting information in mothers of low socioeconomic status compared to other mothers: Participatory mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e22440.
15. Bessière K, Pressman S, Kiesler S, Kraut R. Effects of internet use on health and depression: A longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e6.
16. Lauckner C, Hsieh G, editors. The presentation of health-related search results and its impact on negative emotional outcomes. SIG-CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2013; Paris: ACM.
17. White RW, Horvitz E. Cyberchondria: Studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. 2009;27(4):1–37.
18. Markoff J. Microsoft examines causes of ‘cyberchondria’. The New York Times. 2008 November 24.
19. McElroy E, Shevlin M. The development and initial validation of the cyberchondria severity scale (css). J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(2):259–65.
20. El Sherif R, Pluye P, Thoër C, Rodríguez C. Reducing negative outcomes of online consumer health information: Qualitative interpretive study with clinicians, librarians, and consumers. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):1–15.
21. Rich EC, Lipson D, Libersky J, Peikes DN, Parchman ML. Organizing care for complex patients in the patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):60–2.
22. Schoen C, Osborn R, Squires D, Doty M, Pierson R, Applebaum S. New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated. Health Aff. 2011;30(12):2437–48.
23. Poitras ME, Hudon C, Godbout I, Bujold M, Pluye P, Vaillancourt VT, et al. Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(2):489–502.
24. Hudon C, Chouinard M-C, Aubrey-Bassler K, Burge F, Doucet S, Ramsden VR, et al. Case management in primary care for frequent users of healthcare services with chronic diseases and complex care needs: An implementation and realist evaluation protocol. BMJ. 2018;8(11):e026433.
25. Ronson McNichol B, Rootman I. Literacy and health literacy: New understandings about their impact on health. In: Raphael D, editor. Social determinants of health: Canadian perspectives. 3ieme ed. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press; 2016. p. 261-90.
26. Case D, Given L. Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. 4th ed. London, UK: Academic Press; 2016.
27. Caballero RJ, Jacobs JQ, Lou RL, Ownby J. A systematic review of ehealth interventions to improve health literacy. Health Informatics J. 2016;22(2):81–98.
28. Car J, Lang B, Colledge A, Ung C, Majeed A. Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(6):1–53.
29. Tay JL, Tay YF, Klainin-Yobas P. Effectiveness of information and communication technologies interventions to increase mental health literacy: A systematic review. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018;12(6):1024–37.
30. Arsenijevic J, Tummers L, Bosma N. Adherence to electronic health tools among vulnerable groups: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(2):e11613.
31. Blake KD, Thai C, Falisi A, Chou W-YS, Oh A, Jackson D, et al. Video-based interventions for cancer control: A systematic review. Health Educ Behav. 2020;47(2):249–57.
32. Wofford JL, Smith ED, Miller DP. The multimedia computer for office-based patient education: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;59(2):148–57.
33. Sheridan SL, Halpern DJ, Viera AJ, Berkman ND, Donahue KE, Crotty K. Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: A systematic review. J Health Commun. 2011;16(Suppl 3):30–54.
34. Moran MB, Frank LB, Chatterjee JS, Murphy ST, Baezconde-Garbanati L. A pilot test of the acceptability and efficacy of narrative and non-narrative health education materials in a low health literacy population. J Commun Healthc. 2016;9(1):40–8.
35. Antonaci A, Klemke R, Specht M. The effects of gamification in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Inform. 2019;6(3):e6030032.
36. Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H. Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Waikoloa: IEEE; 2014. p. 3025-34.
37. Pluye P, Granikov V, El Sherif R, Dai J, Paquet V. Online health information aid | aide informationnelle en ligne en santé [internet] Montreal, Canada: Department of Family Medicine, McGill University; c2019-2025. Available from: https://www.healthsanteinfo.ca/.
38. Dai J, Granikov V, Sherif RE, Grguric E, Turcotte E, Pluye P. Patient information aid: An innovative educational program to improve outcomes of online consumer health information. Educ Inf. 2019;35(1):41–9.
39. Pluye P, El Sherif R, Granikov V, Hong Q, Vedel I, Barbosa Galvao M, et al. Health outcomes of online consumer health information: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis. JASIST. 2019;70(7):643–59.
40. Beaudin BP, Quick D. Instructional video evaluation instrument. J Ext. 1996;34(3).
41. Bowles-Terry M, Hensley M, Hinchliffe LJ. Best practices for online video tutorials: A study of student preferences and understanding. Commun Inf Lit. 2010;4(1):4.
42. Brame CJ. Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016;15(4):es6.
43. Hammond J, Rennie B, Seekins T, O'Donnell D. Assessing the availability and quality of online self-help videos: A pilot study with a focus on parkinson's disease. Health Educ J. 2015;74(5):594–602.
44. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. London, UK: Psychology Press; 2010.
45. Centre d'étude sur la pauvreté et l'exclusion (CEPE). La pauvreté, les inégalités et l'exclusion sociale au québec: État de la situation 2019. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale, https://www.mtess.gouv.qc.ca/publications/pdf/CEPE_Etat-situation-2019.pdf; 2019.
46. Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. 1993:206–13.
47. Virzi RA. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Hum Factors. 1992;34(4):457–47.
48. Cazañas A, de San Miguel A, Parra E. Estimating sample size for usability testing. Enfoque UTE. 2017;8(1):172–85.
49. Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H. Research methods in human-computer interaction. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2017.
50. Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. 1989;14:532–50.
51. Creswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2018.
52. Van Der Vaart R, Drossaert C. Development of the digital health literacy instrument: Measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e27.
53. Sbaffi L, Rowley J. Trust and credibility in web-based health information: A review and agenda for future research. 2017;19(6):e218.
54. Schillinger D. Social determinants, health literacy, and disparities: Intersections and controversies. Health Lit Res Pract. 2021;5(3):e234–e43.
55. Sorensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al. Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Glob Public Health. 2012;12:80.
56. van Kessel R, Wong BLH, Clemens T, Brand H. Digital health literacy as a super determinant of health: More than simply the sum of its parts. Internet Interv. 2022;27.
57. Bennett IM, Chen J, Soroui JS, White S. The contribution of health literacy to disparities in self-rated health status and preventive health behaviors in older adults. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(3):204–11.
58. Berkman N, Sheridan S, Donahue K, Halpern D, Viera A, Crotty K, et al. Health literacy interventions and outcomes: An updated systematic review Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2011.
59. Canadian Council on Learning. Health literacy in canada: A healthy understanding. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Learning; 2008. Available from: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/HealthLiteracy/index.html.
60. Centre for Disease Control (CDC). Improving health literacy for older adults: Expert panel report 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.
61. Cho YI, Lee S-YD, Arozullah AM, Crittenden KS. Effects of health literacy on health status and health service utilization amongst the elderly. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(8):1809–16.
62. Connelly RA, Turner T. Health literacy and child health outcomes: Promoting effective health communication strategies to improve quality of care Houston, TX: Springer 2017.
63. Easton P, Entwistle VA, Williams B. Health in the 'hidden population' of people with low literacy: A systematic review of the literature. BMC Glob Public Health. 2010;10(1):e459.
64. Easton P, Entwistle VA, Williams B. How the stigma of low literacy can impair patient-professional spoken interactions and affect health: Insights from a qualitative investigation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:e319.
65. Giuse NB, Koonce TY, Storrow AB, Kusnoor SV, Ye F. Using health literacy and learning style preferences to optimize the delivery of health information. J Health Commun. 2012;17(sup3):122–40.
66. Greenhalgh T. Health literacy: Towards system level solutions. BMJ. 2015(350):h1026.
67. Katz MG, Jacobson TA, Veledar E, Kripalani S. Patient literacy and question-asking behavior during the medical encounter: A mixed-methods analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(6):782–6.
68. Kickbusch IS. Health literacy: Addressing the health and education divide. Health Promot Int. 2001;16(3):289–97.
69. Levin-Zamir D, Peterburg Y. Health literacy in health systems: Perspectives on patient self-management in israel. Health Promot Int. 2001;16(1):87–94.
70. McCray AT. Promoting health literacy. JAMIA. 2005;12(2):152–70.
71. Moreira L. Health literacy for people-centred care: Where do oecd countries stand? Paris: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2018.
72. Nutbeam D. The evolving concept of health literacy. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(12):2072–8.
73. Rootman I, Gordon-El-Bihbety D. A vision for a health literate canada: Report of the expert panel on health literacy. Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association; 2008. Available from: http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/portals/h-l/report_e.pdf.
74. Speros C. Health literacy: Concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(6):633–74.
75. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. National action plan to improve health literacy. Washington, DC: US Department of Health & Human Services; 2010.
76. World Health Organization (WHO). Health literacy: The solid facts. Copenhague: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2013.
77. Whitehead M. A typology of actions to tackle social inequalities in health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(6):473–77.
78. Monteith S, Glenn T, Geddes J, Whybrow P, Achtyes E, Bauer M. Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation. Br J Psychiatry. 2024;224(2):33–5.
79. Menz BD, Modi ND, Sorich MJ, Hopkins AM. Health disinformation use case highlighting the urgent need for artificial intelligence vigilance: Weapons of mass disinformation. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(1):92–6.
80. Lupton D. Digital health: Critical and cross-disciplinary perspectives. London, UK: Routledge; 2018.
81. Godin G. Les comportements dans le domaine de la santé: Comprendre pour mieux intervenir. Montréal, QC: Presses de l'Université de Montréal; 2012.
82. Nissen T, Wynn R. The clinical case report: A review of its merits and limitations. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):1–7.
Pierre Pluye, 1 Formerly of the Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
Vera Granikov, 2 vera.granikov@chairepartenariat.ca, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal Research Centre (CRCHUM), Montréal, Canada
Virginie Paquet, 3 virginie.paquet@umontreal.ca, Service des bibliothèques (Recherche et communication savante), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Francesca Frati, 4 francesca.frati@mcgill.ca, Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
Fabio Balli, 5 info@fabioballi.net, Breathing Games Association, Switzerland
Jiamin Dai, PhD, 6 jiamin.dai@mail.mcgill.ca, School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
Reem El Sherif, 7 reem.elsherif@mail.mcgill.ca, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
Quan Nha Hong, OT, PhD, 8 quan.nha.hong@umontreal.ca, École de réadaptation de l’Université de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Roland M. Grad, 9 roland.grad@mcgill.ca, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
© 2026 Pierre Pluye, Vera Granikov, Virginie Paquet, Francesca Frati, Fabio Balli, Jiamin Dai, Reem El Sherif, Quan Nha Hong, Roland M. Grad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Journal of the Medical Library Association, VOLUME 114, NUMBER 1, January 2026