OBJECTIVE: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults.
METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality.
RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality.
DISCUSSION: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.
METHODS: We searched the relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English in six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria of the review were: 1) studies examining 'eHealth literacy', which refers to the ability to search, select, judge and apply online health information to address or solve health problems and to improve wellbeing; 2) the type of study included observational and experimental studies, mixed method studies or qualitative studies; 3) the participants were healthy adults; 4) the main outcomes were the determinants (i.e. influencing or associated factors) and outcomes (i.e. benefits and disadvantages) of eHealth literacy. Articles were assessed by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A conceptual model to map the determinants and outcomes of eHealth literacy in healthy adults into the non-modifiable, individual, social and community networks and structural layers was developed to classify the identified determinants and outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in this review, of which 43 studies were cross-sectional and one was qualitative. eHealth literacy determinants included age, sex, literacy factors, socioeconomic factors and language. eHealth literacy outcomes included better general health promotion behavior, COVID-19 preventive behaviors, psychological wellbeing, social support, self-rated health and health service utilisation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that eHealth literacy has multi-layered determinants and positive outcomes. Different strategies at different policy levels are needed to improve the eHealth literacy levels of healthy adults.