Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32673218›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Digital Divide in Perceived Benefits of Online Health Care and Social Welfare Services: National Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Tarja Heponiemi, Vesa Jormanainen, Lars Leemann, Kristiina Manderbacka, Anna-Mari Aalto, Hannele Hyppönen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Tarja HeponiemiFinnish Institution for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8540-049X
Vesa JormanainenFinnish Institution for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1906-8043
Lars LeemannFinnish Institution for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3268-5780
Kristiina ManderbackaFinnish Institution for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3668-5382
Anna-Mari AaltoFinnish Institution for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1287-1431
Hannele HyppönenFinnish Institution for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3914-5640

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of online services in health care is increasing rapidly in developed countries. Users are expected to take a more skilled and active role in taking care of their health and prevention of ill health. This induces risks that users (especially those who need the services the most) will drop out of digital services, resulting in a digital divide or exclusion. To ensure wide and equal use of online services, all users must experience them as beneficial.

objectiveThis study aimed to examine associations of (1) demographics (age, gender, and degree of urbanization), (2) self-rated health, (3) socioeconomic position (education, experienced financial hardship, labor market position, and living alone), (4) social participation (voting, satisfaction with relationships, and keeping in touch with friends and family members), and (5) access, skills, and extent of use of information and communication technologies (ICT) with perceived benefits of online health care and social welfare services. Associations were examined separately for perceived health, economic, and collaboration benefits.

methodsWe used a large random sample representative of the Finnish population including 4495 (56.77% women) respondents aged between 20 and 97 years. Analyses of covariance were used to examine the associations of independent variables with perceived benefits.

resultsAccess to online services, ICT skills, and extent of use were associated with all examined benefits of online services. ICT skills seemed to be the most important factor. Poor self-rated health was also consistently associated with lower levels of perceived benefits. Similarly, those who were keeping in touch with their friends and relatives at least once a week perceived online services more often beneficial in all the examined dimensions. Those who had experienced financial hardship perceived fewer health and economic benefits than others. Those who were satisfied with their relationships reported higher levels of health and collaboration benefits compared with their counterparts. Also age, education, and degree of urbanization had some statistically significant associations with benefits but they seemed to be at least partly explained by differences in access, skills, and extent of use of online services.

conclusionsAccording to our results, providing health care services online has the potential to reinforce existing social and health inequalities. Our findings suggest that access to online services, skills to use them, and extent of use play crucial roles in perceiving them as beneficial. Moreover, there is a risk of digital exclusion among those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, in poor health, or socially isolated. In times when health and social services are increasingly offered online, this digital divide may predispose people with high needs for services to exclusion from them.

Indexed as

Socioeconomic FactorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDigital DivideFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSocial WelfareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultaccessbenefitsdigital divideFinlandonline servicesparticipationskillssociodemographics

Identifiers

PMID32673218
PMCPMC7381057

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.