CONTEXT: Community-dwelling patients with complex care needs (hereafter ‘the patients’) usually combine chronic illness, polypharmacy, low socioeconomic status (SES), and difficulties in care coordination and communication with health professionals. They seek, evaluate and use information to choose optimal care. However, the patients with low eHealth literacy often have difficulty finding trustworthy information that is easy to read, listen to or watch. Improving eHealth literacy can: increase participation in self-care and health; decrease medical problems, reduce social inequalities, and limit the use and cost of services. OBJECTIVES: (i) To describe the acceptability, ease of use, and drawbacks of a literacy intervention; (ii) to explain their benefits and improve them; and (iii) to test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Mixed methods study (sequential explanatory design) - Pilot approved by the McGill IRB. INTERVENTION: Innovative ‘Online Health Information Aid’ website (OHIA) and video aimed to enhance patients’ ability to find, evaluate and use online health information (three principles of eHealth literacy). PHASE 1 QUANTITATIVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY (STEPPED WEDGE): Estimated values of parameters to design an RCT will be explored: 100 low SES patients will be randomly assigned to four groups who will receive the intervention in turn. Pre- and post-intervention data will be collected, and descriptive statistics calculated. PHASE 2 QUALITATIVE. MULTIPLE CASE STUDY: The patients’ experience with the intervention will be described with a purposeful sample of 30 participants from phase-one. Cases will be participants’ recent searches for online health information and will be identified using ‘journey mapping’ and ‘critical incident’ techniques. For each case, data will be collected from interviews, observations and documents. Thematic analysis: The participants' experience will be described in terms of acceptability, ease of use, benefits and potential harms; mechanisms of action and suggestions for improvement. Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Cases will be compared, and patterns of conditions explaining benefits identified. INTEGRATION: Quantitative and qualitative results will be integrated into a joint-display table to provide recommendations for improving the intervention and planning an RCT. RESULTS: Pilot results will be reported at the conference.