Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289720›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

User profiles in digitalized healthcare: active, potential, and rejecting - a cross-sectional study using latent class analysis.

Anja Knöchelmann, Karl Healy, Thomas Frese, Eva Kantelhardt, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Gabriele Meyer, Jan Schildmann, Anke Steckelberg, Max Herke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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

9 authors.

Anja KnöchelmannInstitute of Medical Sociology, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, Halle (Saale), 06112, Germany. anja.knoechelmann@medizin.uni-halle.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-9024
Karl HealyInstitute of Medical Sociology, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, Halle (Saale), 06112, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6689-2617
Thomas FreseInstitute of General Practice & Family Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9745-5690
Eva KantelhardtAG Global Health, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometry and Informatics, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-719X
Rafael MikolajczykInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometry and Informatics, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1271-7204
Gabriele MeyerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3188-2902
Jan SchildmannInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5755-7630
Anke SteckelbergInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8687-3149
Max HerkeInstitute of Medical Sociology, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, Halle (Saale), 06112, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6425-4366

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence of different use by different groups of people for general health-related applications. Yet, these findings are lacking for digitalized healthcare services. It is also unclear whether typical use patterns can be found and how user types can be characterized.

methodsThe analyses are based on data from 1 821 respondents to the Health Related Beliefs and Health Care Experiences in Germany panel (HeReCa). Digitalized healthcare services, that were used to determine the user types, include for example sick notes before/after examination and disease related training. User types were determined by latent class analysis. Individual groups were characterized using multinomial logistic regressions, taking into account socioeconomic and demographic factors as well as individual attitudes towards digitalization in the healthcare system.

resultsThree types were identified: rejecting (27.9%), potential (53.8%) and active (18.3%). Active participants were less likely to be employed, less likely to be highly educated and less skeptical of digital technologies. Potential users were the youngest, most highly-educated and most frequently employed group, with less skepticism than those who rejected. Rejecters were the oldest group, more likely to be female and of higher socio-economic status.

conclusionsSocio-demographic and socio-economic differences were identified among three user types. It can therefore be assumed that not all population groups will benefit from the trend towards digitalization in healthcare. Steps should be taken to enhance access to innovations and ensure that everyone benefits from them.

Indexed as

Latent Class AnalysisAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDigital TechnologyFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesDigital divideDigitalized healthcare servicesEducationIncomeLatent class analysisUser types

Identifiers

PMID39289720
PMCPMC11409736

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.