ArticleBMC public health2023
Disability digital divide: survey of accessibility of eHealth services as perceived by people with and without impairment.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Services in European Public Health Care Systems: Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Inclusive Digital Health Strategies for Persons With Disabilities: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Accessibility Recommendations of Interfaces Designed for Individuals with Mental and Physical Disabilities: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Epistemic injustice, healthcare disparities and the missing pipeline: reflections on the exclusion of disabled scholars from health research.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- A Self-Guided Web-Based Transdiagnostic Mental Health Program for People With Intellectual Disability: Single-Arm Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Exploring online and in-person mental healthcare access and app use in a cohort of people living with disability: results from the 2019 and 2020 California Health Interview Survey.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Virtual Consultations for People With Intellectual Disabilities in General Practice and Community Care: Mixed Methods Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Digital Health Communication for Deaf Individuals: Scoping Review of Technologies, Strategies, and Outcomes.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Deaf people's experience of the digital transformation of UK healthcare services: a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- The (dis-)advantages of telehealth consultation for allied health services: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Prediction of Adherence to an Online Wellness Program for People with Mobility Limitations: A Machine Learning Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Building Patient Capabilities for Using Virtual Care: A Document Analysis of Patient Support Resources and Guidance.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Digital application competence among adults with disabilities in South Korea: associations with latent profiles of digital attitudes and digital self-efficacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Qualitative exploration of consumers' experiences and perceptions of telehealth for allied health services in Australia.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Using a Technology Acceptance Model to Explore the Intention to Use Digital Health Technologies Among People With Disabilities: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Uncovering Core Qualities of Digital Interventions for Health Promotion: Perspectives From People With Intellectual Disabilities, Relatives, and Professionals.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2025Article
- Digital Inclusion in Parkinson's Disease: A Case-Control Study.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025Article
- Use of Digital Technology Among Older Adults in Poland With and Those Without Near Visual Impairment: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Bridging the digital divide for people with aphasia: a study protocol for codesigning web accessibility tools and guidelines.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.