ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2025
Quantitative evaluation of patients' digital capability evaluated in an emergency department setting: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe main aim of the study was (1) to assess digital literacy among acutely admitted patients in an ED, (2) to provide quantitative data relating to the 'inverse information law'. We hypothesised that a large proportion of acutely admitted patients are digitally incapable, and there is a link between age, frailty, hospital admittances and digital incapability.
designThis study is a single-centre, cross-sectional, prospective case-controlled questionnaire study. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), gender and age were collected from the patients' electronic medical reports. Information regarding smartphone usage, ability to access public mail/communication, educational level, living situation and number of admittances the last year were patient-reported bedside. Subsequently, ability to use a digital platform was tested.
settingA secondary care ED in Denmark, with a high level of broadband penetration, allows easy digital access.
participantsA total of 588 patients were assessed for eligibility, hereof 468 patients were included. Inclusion criteria were age above 18 years, admitted for treatment of an internal medicine or surgical problem, triaged non-emergent in a stable condition, informed oral and written consent.
main outcome measuresThe proportions of acutely admitted patients who were digitally capable versus incapable whether there is a link between age, frailty, hospital admittances and digital incapability.
resultsAmong patients included, 57% (n=265) had high digital literacy, while 43% (n=203) had low literacy Δ%=14. The high digital capability group was significantly younger by 23% (15.3, 20.5) p<0.001 and had lower CFS than the low digital capability group 2.3 versus 4.2 (1.7, 2.3) p<0.001. The low digital capability group had 1.6-fold more admittances the previous year (0.5, 1.2) p<0.001.
conclusionsThe proportion of digitally illiterate patients is high (43%), and they are older, frailer and have more hospital admittances and less high education than digitally literate patients. There is a significant digital divide that needs to be considered in health care.
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.