Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38549176›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2024

The digital divide in rural and regional communities: a survey on the use of digital health technology and implications for supporting technology use.

Hannah Jongebloed, Kate Anderson, Natalie Winter, Lemai Nguyen, Catherine E Huggins, Feby Savira, Paul Cooper, Eva Yuen, Anna Peeters, Bodil Rasmussen and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Consensus statement on the application of artificial intelligence in osteoporosis screening and management: perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

15 authors.

Hannah JongebloedInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia. h.jongebloed@deakin.edu.au.
Kate AndersonInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Natalie WinterInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Lemai NguyenInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Catherine E HugginsInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Feby SaviraInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Paul CooperInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Eva YuenInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Anna PeetersInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Bodil RasmussenInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Sandeep ReddyInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Sarah CroweWestern Victoria Primary Health Network, Geelong, Australia.
Rahul BhoyrooWestern Victoria Primary Health Network, Geelong, Australia.
Imran MuhammadInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
Anna UgaldeInstitute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, 3220, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA digital divide exists for people from rural and regional areas where they are less likely and confident to engage in digital health technologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the digital health literacy and engagement of people from rural and regional communities, with a focus on identifying barriers and facilitators to using technology.

resultsForty adults living in rural/regional areas completed a survey consisting of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) with additional items surveying participants' experience with a range of digital health technologies. All participants had used at least one digital health technology. Most (80%) participants had an eHEALS score of 26 or above indicating confidence in online health information. Commonly reported barriers to digital health technology use centred on product complexity and reliability, awareness of resources, lack of trust, and cost. Effective digital health technology use is becoming increasingly important, there may be a need to prioritise and support people with lower levels of digital health literacy. We present opportunities to support community members in using and accessing digital health technology.

Indexed as

Digital DivideHealth LiteracyTelemedicineAdultDigital HealthHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyAccessibilityConfidenceDigital divideDigital healthDigital literacyOnline health informationRural health

Identifiers

PMID38549176
PMCPMC10976777

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.