Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689241›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2024

From office to digital primary care services: analysing income-related inequalities in utilization.

Jens Wilkens, Hans Thulesius, Björn Ekman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Digital exclusion in healthcare services: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Jens WilkensDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, Jan Waldenströms gata 35, 20205. jens.wilkens@med.lu.se.
Hans ThulesiusDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, Jan Waldenströms gata 35, 20205.
Björn EkmanDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, Jan Waldenströms gata 35, 20205.

Funding

Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare 2018-00093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of digital technologies to deliver primary health care has increased over the past decade. While some technologies have been shown to be medically effective and efficient, the effects of digital primary care on the policy goal of equality in the use of such types of care have not been studied using large register data. The aim of this study was to analyse how digital contacts differ from officebased visits by income as an indicator of socioeconomic status. Specifically, we estimated differences in primary care utilization across income, factors of contribution to these inequalities, and applied a needs-based standardisation of utilization to estimate differences in equity.We used a purposively built consultation level dataset with 726 000 Swedish adult patients diagnosed with an infection, including clinical and sociodemographic variables. Applying concentration indexes (CI) and graphical illustrations we measured how the two types of services are distributed relative to income. We estimated how much of the inequalities were attributed to different sociodemographic factors by decomposing the concentration indexes. Standardised utilization for sex, age and comorbidity allowed for the estimation of horizontal inequity indexes for both types of services.Utilization by the two types of care showed large income inequalities. Office-based visits were propoor (CI -0.116), meaning lowincome patients utilized relatively more of these services, while digital contacts were prorich (CI 0.205). However, within the patient group who had at least one digital contact, the utilization was also propoor (CI -0,101), although these patients had higher incomes on average. The standardised utilization showed a smaller prorich digital utilization (CI 0.143), although large differences remained. Decomposing the concentration indexes showed that education level and being born in Sweden were strong attributes of prorich digital service utilization.The prorich utilization effects of digital primary care may risk undermining the policy goals of access and utilization to services regardless of socioeconomic status. As digital health technologies continue to expand, policy makers need to be aware of the risk.

Indexed as

IncomePrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedDigital TechnologyFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOffice VisitsPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocial ClassSocioeconomic FactorsSwedenConcentration indexDigital health servicesEqualityPrimary careRegister dataService utilizationSweden

Identifiers

PMID38689241
PMCPMC11061960

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.