Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27876684›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016

Do We Still Have a Digital Divide in Mental Health? A Five-Year Survey Follow-up.

Dan Robotham, Safarina Satkunanathan, Lisa Doughty, Til Wykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

106 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Digital exclusion in healthcare services: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dan RobothamDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2968-2415
Safarina SatkunanathanDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3039-3960
Lisa DoughtyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0450-2580
Til WykesDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5881-8003

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNearly everyone in society uses the Internet in one form or another. The Internet is heralded as an efficient way of providing mental health treatments and services. However, some people are still excluded from using Internet-enabled technology through lack of resources, skills, and confidence.

objectiveFive years ago, we showed that people with severe mental illness were at risk of digital exclusion, especially middle-aged patients with psychosis and/or people from black or minority ethnic groups with psychosis. An understanding of the breadth of potential digital exclusion is vital for the implementation of digital health services. The aim of this study is to understand the context of digital exclusion for people who experience mental illness.

methodsWe conducted a survey involving people with a primary diagnosis of psychosis or depression in London, United Kingdom. A total of 241 participants were recruited: 121 with psychosis and 120 with depression. The majority of surveys were collected face-to-face (psychosis: n=109; depression: n=71). Participants answered questions regarding familiarity, access, use, motivation, and confidence with Internet-enabled technologies (ie, computers and mobile phones). Variables predicting digital exclusion were identified in regression analyses. The results were compared with the survey conducted in 2011.

resultsDigital exclusion has declined since 2011. Online survey collection introduced biases into the sample, masking those who were likely to be excluded. Only 18.3% (20/109) of people with psychosis in our sample were digitally excluded, compared with 30% (28/93) in 2011 (χ

conclusionsDigital exclusion is lower, but some remain excluded. Facilitating inclusion among this population means helping them develop skills and confidence in using technology, and providing them with access. Providing mobile phones without basic information technology training may be counterproductive because excluded people may be excluded from mobile technology too. An evidence-based digital inclusion strategy is needed within the National Health Service to help digitally excluded populations access Internet-enabled services.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneDigital DivideInternetMental Health ServicesAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsYoung Adultdigital dividedistance counselingmobile phonepsychotic disorderssocioeconomic factorstechnology

Identifiers

PMID27876684
PMCPMC5141335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.