Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33435970›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Socioeconomic and behavioural factors associated with access to and use of Personal Health Records.

Ivana Paccoud, Michèle Baumann, Etienne Le Bihan, Benoît Pétré, Mareike Breinbauer, Philip Böhme, Louis Chauvel, Anja K Leist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bridging the Health Literacy Gap for Patients With Oral Cancer: Readability Enhancement With AI Chatbots.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A scoping review and expert consensus on digital determinants of health.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

Ivana PaccoudDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-1526-8013
Michèle BaumannDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0003-4733-6276
Etienne Le BihanDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Benoît PétréDepartment of Public Health, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Mareike BreinbauerDepartment of General Medicine and Geriatrics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5027-4905
Philip BöhmeDepartment of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Nutrition, Regional Network LORDIAMN, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5280-2959
Louis ChauvelDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0001-5865-9404
Anja K LeistDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg. anja.leist@uni.lu.ORCID 0000-0002-5074-5209

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to and use of digital technology are more common among people of more advantaged socioeconomic status. These differences might be due to lack of interest, not having physical access or having lower intentions to use this technology. By integrating the digital divide approach and the User Acceptance of Information Technology (UTAUT) model, this study aims to further our understanding of socioeconomic factors and the mechanisms linked to different stages in the use of Personal Health Records (PHR): desire, intentions and physical access to PHR.

methodsA cross-sectional online and in-person survey was undertaken in the areas of Lorraine (France), Luxembourg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland (Germany), and Wallonia (Belgium). Exploratory factor analysis was performed to group items derived from the UTAUT model. We applied linear and logistic regressions controlling for country-level heterogeneity, health and demographic factors.

resultsA total of 829 individuals aged over 18 completed the questionnaire. Socioeconomic inequalities were present in the access to and use of PHR. Education and income played a significant role in individuals' desire to access their PHR. Being older than 65 years, and migrant, were negatively associated with desire to access PHR. An income gradient was found in having physical access to PHR, while for the subgroup of respondents who expressed desire to have access, higher educational level was positively associated with intentions to regularly use PHR. In fully adjusted models testing the contribution of UTAUT-derived factors, individuals who perceived PHRs to be useful and had the necessary digital skills were more inclined to use their PHR regularly. Social influence, support and lack of anxiety in using technology were strong predictors of regular PHR use.

conclusionThe findings highlight the importance of considering all stages in PHR use: desire to access, physical access and intention to regularly use PHRs, while paying special attention to migrants and people with less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds who may feel financial constraints and are not able to exploit the potential of PHRs. As PHR use is expected to come with health benefits, facilitating access and regular use for those less inclined could reduce health inequalities and advance health equity.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalAgedBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesFranceGermanyHumansSocioeconomic FactorsDigital divideHealth inequalitiesHealth inequitiesPersonal health recordsUser acceptance of information technology

Identifiers

PMID33435970
PMCPMC7805047

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.