This is an outdated version published on 2026-02-17. Read the most recent version.

Usability and potential impact of a web-based literacy-oriented intervention for community-dwelling patients with complex care needs: A mixed methods case report

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.1756

Keywords:

Consumer health information, ehealth literacy, literacy program, online health information

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.

Author Biographies

Pierre Pluye, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

Pierre Pluye, MD, PhD, was a full-time researcher, Professor at the Department of Family Medicine, and Associate Member of the School of Information Studies (McGill University). He is a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS), and a founding member of the Quebec SPOR SUPPORT Unit. In 2017, he received the 'Researcher of the Year Award' from the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC). In 2021, he received the NAGS Doctoral Teaching Award (Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools – Canada and USA) that recognizes excellence and innovation in the teaching of doctoral students, and in the development and implementation of curriculum. He offered expertise in mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. His studies are aimed to assess and improve outcomes of online health information.

Vera Granikov, School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Vera Granikov is a postdoctoral research fellow with the Canada Research Chair in Partnership with Patients and Communities. She has an MLIS and a PhD in Information Studies from McGill University. Her dissertation examined the factors and the outcomes of collaboration in keeping up to date with new information. Vera brings 15 years of experience in health information and patient-oriented research. She has expertise in systematic mixed studies reviews, mixed methods research, and participatory research approaches. Her postdoctoral research explores how to build critical health literacy capacity through collaborative learning and in partnership with communities.

Virginie Paquet, Bibliothèque Marguerite-D’Youville (secteur santé), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.

Virginie Paquet holds a Master's in Information Science and works as a health sciences librarian at Bibliothèque Marguerite-d’Youville - Université de Montréal. She is interested in information literacy, knowledge transfer and open science.

Francesca Frati, Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Francesca Frati is assistant librarian at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec. She is the liaison librarian for the Ingram School of Nursing, where she provides support for teaching, learning and research for students and faculty across all programs. She is also the liaison for McGill affiliated health institution libraries.  Francesca has a BFA from the Nova Scotia College of Art & Design, and received her Master of Library and Information Studies in 2005 from the Dalhousie University School of Library and Information Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She is a member of the ACRL Nursing Information Literacy Framework Working Group and a member of the Information Technology Primary Care Research Group (ITPCRG) at McGill University.  

Fabio Balli, Breathing Games Association, Switzerland

Fabio Balli coordinates co-creation and partnerships. In 2014, he co-founded Breathing Games to encourage everyone to become creators of respiratory health knowledge and technologies. In 2020, Fabio was part of the core organizing team for EUvsVirus (20,900 participants). He now prepares a report on Open Sciences in French-speaking Canada. He holds a MAS in Human Systems Engineering (HES-SO) and is completing a PhD on health commons (Concordia, McGill, Harvard).

Jiamin Dai, School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Jiamin Dai completes her Ph.D. in Information Studies at McGill University. Her doctoral research focuses on exploring assistive technologies and information services to promote social sharing for people with dementia. She holds a Master of Information Studies and a B.Sc. in Educational Technology.

Reem El Sherif, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Reem El Sherif holds a PhD from the Department of Family Medicine at McGill University, and her research focuses on people's use online health information, specifically using a mixed methods research approach. 

Quan Nha Hong, École de réadaptation de l’Université de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.

Quan Nha Hong, OT, PhD, is an assistant professor at the School of Rehabilitation of the Université de Montréal and a researcher at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal (CRIR).

Roland M. Grad, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Roland Grad is a practising family doctor in Montreal and a physician-scientist at McGill University. For the science of knowledge translation, he co-developed the Information Assessment Method (IAM). More about this can be found in his book titled Look it up! What Patients, Doctors, Nurses, and Pharmacists Need to Know About the Internet and Primary Health Care.  

References

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.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-02-17

Versions

Issue

Vol. 114 No. 1 (2026): January 2026

Section

Case Report

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Pierre Pluye, Virginie Paquet, Vera Granikov, Francesca Frati, Fabio Balli, Jiamin Dai, Reem El Sherif, Quan Nha Hong, Roland M Grad

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.