Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39746193›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Association Between Digital Front Doors and Social Care Use for Community-Dwelling Adults in England: Cross-Sectional Study.

Jinbao Zhang, Jonathan E Prunty, Alison C Charles, Julien Forder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jinbao ZhangPersonal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2354-9288
Jonathan E PruntyLeverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9180-1932
Alison C CharlesCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-5454-7410
Julien ForderPersonal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7793-4328

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRequests for public social care support can be made through an online portal. These digital "front doors" can help people navigate complex social care systems and access services. These systems can be set up in different ways, but there is little evidence about the impact of alternative arrangements. Digital front-door systems should help people better access services, particularly low-intensity services (high-intensity care is likely to require a full in-person assessment).

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the association between 2 primary digital front door arrangements, easy-read information, and self-assessment tools provided on official websites, and the type of social care support that is offered: ongoing low-level support (OLLS), short-term care (STC) and long-term care (LTC).

methodsInformation on front door arrangements was collected from the official websites of 152 English local authorities in 2021. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using aggregated service use data from official government returns at the local authority level. The independent variables were derived from the policy information collected, specifically focusing on the availability of online digital easy-read information and self-assessment tools for adults and caregivers through official websites. The dependent variables were the rates of using social care support, including OLLS, STC, and LTC, across different age groups: the adult population (aged 18 and older), younger population (aged between 18 and 64 years), and older population (aged 65 and older). Multivariate regression analysis was used to examine the association between digital front door arrangements and access to social care support, controlling for population size, dependency level, and financial need factors.

resultsLess than 20% (27/147) of local authorities provided an integrated digital easy-read format as part of their digital front door system with about 25% (37/147) adopting digital self-assessment within their system. We found that local authorities that offered an integrated digital easy-read information format showed higher rates of using OLLS (β coefficient=0.54; P=.03; but no statistically significant association with LTC and STC). The provision of an online self-assessment system was not associated with service use in the 1-year (2021) cross-sectional estimate, but when 2 years (2020 and 2021) of service-use data were analyzed, a significant positive association was found on OLLS rates (β coefficient=0.41; P=.21). Notably, these findings were consistent across different age groups.

conclusionsThese findings are consistent with our hypothesis that digital systems with built-in easy-read and self-assessment may make access to (low-intensity) services easier for people. Adoption of these arrangements could potentially help increase the uptake of support among those who are eligible, with expected benefits for their care-related well-being. Given the limited adoption of the digital front door by local authorities in England, expanding their use could improve care-related outcomes and save social care costs.

Indexed as

Independent LivingAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSocial SupportYoung Adultaccessdigital systemdigital technologyeasy-readfront doorinternetlong term careself-assessmentsocial care supportsystem navigation

Identifiers

PMID39746193
PMCPMC11739725

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.