ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[Social inequality in the context of digital health applications: digital divides in access, use, effectiveness, and privacy].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structural biases in digital health intervention and health equity research: a bibliometric knowledge graph analysis (2015-2025).Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Improving quality of life in cancer patients with an app-based intervention (Mika-App): secondary results from a randomized controlled waitlist-trial in Germany.Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie · 2026Trial
- [Use of digital information and support services by informal caregivers from the perspective of medical assessors : Results from a focus group study].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Article
- Perceived stigmatization in cancer patients during the first year after diagnosis: the role of socioeconomic status.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for health services research and practice - Part II].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- Construction of an e-Health Literacy Program for Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome Based on Integrative Model of eHealth Use.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Article
- Transformative Learning in Digital Bioethics Education: An Interdisciplinary Lecture Series on Human-Animal Relationships.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Regional Disparities in the Use and Demand for Digital Health Services for Autism Spectrum Disorder in China: Cross-Sectional Survey of Stakeholder Perspectives.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the massive increase in digital health tools, the question about the impact of these tools on health equity has gained importance. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss the extent and central aspects of the digital divide. To illustrate the extent of the digital divide, we draw on data from the Liter@te study, which interviewed low-literacy individuals regarding their use of digital health tools and their digital health literacy. The results of the Liter@te study are compared with population surveys conducted in parallel. Four areas can be distinguished in relation to digital divides: access, use, effectiveness, and privacy. Inequalities can be observed in all four areas. While differences in access or material infrastructure, as well as in usage patterns and the required literacies, have already been investigated in some studies, the data basis for a comprehensive assessment of the unequal effects of digital health tools in different population groups is still lacking. Digital divides in the area of privacy protection is an emerging field. However, transparent and understandable privacy measures will undoubtedly be an important prerequisite for the widespread use of digital health tools. Overall, in addition to a better data base, involvement of disadvantaged population groups in the development of digital health interventions is necessary.
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.