ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Differences in eHealth Access, Use, and Perceived Benefit Between Different Socioeconomic Groups in the Dutch Context: Secondary Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Services in European Public Health Care Systems: Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Digital clinic users in Finnish public primary care: their characteristics, reasons for visits, and equity considerations - a register study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Observational
- User Profiles and Engagement in a Hypertension Self-Management App: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Investigating the early uptake of digital self-management interventions amongst Dutch cancer survivors using nationwide registry data-the OncoAppstore case.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Intention to use and perceived satisfaction with a digital tool for dementia prevention among the Dutch general public: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Observational
- The Motivations of Citizens to Attend an eHealth Course in the Public Library: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- The impact of the digital divide on residents' healthcare consumption inequality: evidence from CFPS in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Digital Health Use Across Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Chronic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
backgroundThere is a growing concern that digital health care may exacerbate existing health disparities. Digital health care or eHealth encompasses the digital apps that are used in health care. Differences in access, use, and perceived benefits of digital technology among socioeconomic groups are commonly referred to as the digital divide. Current research shows that people in lower socioeconomic positions (SEPs) use eHealth less frequently.
objectiveThis study aims to (1) investigate the association between SEP and eHealth access to, use of, and perceived benefit within the adult Dutch population and (2) evaluate disparities in eHealth access, use, and perceived benefit through three socioeconomic variables-education, standardized income, and the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood.
methodsA secondary analysis was conducted on data from the Nivel Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel (response rate 57%, 849/1500), to assess access to, use of, and perceived benefits from eHealth. These data were collected to monitor eHealth developments in the Netherlands. eHealth was examined through two concepts: (1) eHealth in general and (2) websites, apps, and wearables. Results were stratified into 9 SEP populations based on 3 indicators-education, standardized income, and socioeconomic status level of the neighborhood. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether the outcomes varied significantly across different SEP groups. Age was included as a covariate to control for confounding.
resultsThis study confirms the association between eHealth and SEP and shows that low SEP respondents have less access (odds ratio [OR] 5.72, 95% CI 3.06-10.72) and use (OR 4.96, 95% CI 2.66-9.24) of eHealth compared to medium or high SEP respondents. Differences were most profound when stratifying for levels of education.
conclusionsThe access to and use of eHealth has a socioeconomic gradient and emphasizes that SEP indicators cannot be used interchangeably to assess eHealth access and use. The results underline the importance of activities and policies aimed at improving eHealth accessibility and usage among low SEP groups to mitigate disparities in health between different socioeconomic groups.
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.