Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36707791›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Disability digital divide: survey of accessibility of eHealth services as perceived by people with and without impairment.

Linda Pettersson, Stefan Johansson, Ingrid Demmelmaier, Catharina Gustavsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Digital Inclusion in Parkinson's Disease: A Case-Control Study.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Linda PetterssonCenter for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Nissers Väg 3, SE-791 82, Falun, Sweden. linda.a.pettersson@regiondalarna.se.ORCID 0000-0003-1730-3131
Stefan JohanssonSchool of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7975-6198
Ingrid DemmelmaierDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2068-4708
Catharina GustavssonCenter for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Nissers Väg 3, SE-791 82, Falun, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8709-4446
Uppsala University · SEDalarna University · SEKTH Royal Institute of Technology · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSustainable and effective eHealth requires accessibility for everyone. Little is known about how accessibility of eHealth is perceived among people with various impairments. The aim of this study was to compare use and perceived difficulty in the use of eHealth among people with and without impairment, and how different types of impairment were associated with perceived difficulty in the use of eHealth.

methodsThis study used data collected in a nationwide survey in Sweden. Snowball sampling was used to recruit participants with self-reported impairment, from June to October 2019. In February 2020, the survey was posted to people in the general population who were matched to the participants with impairment by age, gender and county of residence. Multiple logistic regression was used to analyse the use of four eHealth services, and perceived difficulty in the use of six eHealth services.

resultsIn total, 1631 participants with, and 1084 participants without impairment responded to the survey. Participants with impairment reported less use and more difficulty in the use of all eHealth services as compared to participants without impairment. When comparing types of impairment, booking healthcare appointments online was least used and most avoided by participants with communication, language and calculation impairments (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) use 0.64, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.49-0.83; aOR avoid 1.64, 95%CI 1.19-2.27), and intellectual impairments (aOR use 0.28, 95%CI 0.20-0.39; aOR avoid 2.88, 95%CI 1.86-4.45). The Swedish national web-portal for health information and services, 1177.se, was reported difficult to use the most among participants with communication, language and calculation impairments (aOR 2.24, 95%CI 1.50-3.36), deaf-blindness (aOR 11.24, 95%CI 3.49-36.23) and hearing impairment (aOR 2.50, 95%CI 1.17-5.35).

conclusionsThe results confirm the existence of an eHealth disability digital divide. People with impairment were not one homogeneous group, but differed in perceived difficulties in regard to eHealth. Based on a purposeful subgrouping of impairments, we showed that people with communication, language and calculation impairments, and intellectual impairments, reported least use and most difficulty in using eHealth. The findings can guide further research in creating eHealth that is accessible for all, including those with the most significant difficulties.

Indexed as

Digital DividePersons with DisabilitiesTelemedicineHumansSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesAccessibilityDigital InclusioneHealthImpairmentUniversal design

Identifiers

PMID36707791
PMCPMC9880913
OpenAlexW4318219052

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.