SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Digital Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Services in European Public Health Care Systems: Systematic Review of Observational Studies.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Preliminary Evaluation of the OCODES Digital Strategy in Response to Health Misinformation: Nominal Group Technique and Retrospective Usability Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Long-term trends and factors associated with migrant participation in Korea's National Health Screening Program: a nationwide retrospective population-based study.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- What do women value in a maternal education app? A sequential mixed-methods study on user perspectives of EMAeHealth.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- Digital public services and subjective well-being in rural China: health and multidomain lifestyle pathways in the cross-provincial Dabie Mountains region.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Background: European public health care systems are expanding eHealth tools such as teleconsultations, online appointment bookings, and electronic health records to improve efficiency and access to health care. However, their use depends on factors such as digital skills and internet access, which are unequally distributed across socioeconomic and demographic determinants. Most existing evidence on these inequalities is qualitative or outside universal health care systems. Objective: This systematic review aims to synthesize quantitative evidence on social inequalities in access to and use of eHealth services within European public health care systems. Specifically, we sought to identify which social determinants were most consistently associated with unequal use of online appointment booking, teleconsultations, electronic health records, and eHealth portals, across major social determinants of health. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for studies published in English or Spanish between 2015 and October 2025. Eligible quantitative studies included adults (≥18 years) using public health care systems in European countries. The primary outcome was differential access to or use of eHealth tools by social determinants in any level of care. Screening and data extraction were independently performed by 3 reviewers using Rayyan, resolving disagreements through consensus. Data extracted covered study design, population, eHealth tools, social determinants, and outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Due to study heterogeneity in digital tools and inequality dimensions, results were synthesized narratively by tool type and social inequality factors. Point estimates and 95% CIs were extracted when available. Results: Of the 2366 records retrieved, 18 observational studies met the inclusion criteria: 13 cross-sectional, 3 prevalence, 1 retrospective cohort, and 1 ecological cohort. Publication output increased from 2020 onward, mostly driven by cross-sectional studies from northern and western Europe. Findings revealed consistent social gradients in eHealth use: older adults, individuals with lower educational or socioeconomic level, ethnic minorities, and those with limited digital skills or poorer health were less likely to use eHealth tools. Most studies were rated as high quality (78%), and the remainder as moderate, heterogeneity in designs, outcomes, and populations may limit generalizability. Conclusions: Digital transformation in European public health systems has not benefited all groups equally. This review highlights persistent social inequalities in the use of key digital health tools. While many included studies were of high quality, heterogeneity in study designs, populations, and outcomes, as well as risk of bias, limits causal inference and the direct translation of findings into policy and practice. The findings nonetheless reveal systematic patterns of exclusion that are highly relevant for policy. Emphasizing an intersectional approach and standardizing measures of digital access will be essential to develop effective, equity-focused policies that ensure inclusive digital health services for all.
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.