Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712339›Full record

ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025

Smartphone barrier: uncovering the digital divide in mHealth prevention among disadvantaged middle-aged and older-aged UK communities.

Rachael Brooks, Marieke P Hoevenaar-Blom, Nicola Coley, Eric P Moll van Charante, Linda Barnes, Edo Richard, Carol Brayne, PRODEMOS consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Rachael Brooks *Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marieke P Hoevenaar-Blom *Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6760-5149
Nicola ColeyAging team, Center for Epidemiology and Research in Population Health (CERPOP), University of Toulouse-INSERM UMR1295, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1671-824X
Eric P Moll van CharanteDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1489-5218
Linda BarnesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Edo Richard *Department of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carol Brayne *Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5307-663X
PRODEMOS consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the response to an invitation to participate in a blended mobile Health intervention among adults living in deprived areas. Design: Secondary analysis of recruitment data from a randomised controlled trial. Setting: A primary care population from disadvantaged geographies in the UK. Participants: Individuals in mid-to-late life at increased risk of developing dementia based on their risk profile. Interventions: Invitation by letter from GP, followed by a text reminder by phone. Main outcome measures: (1) Response rate to the invitation. (2) Association of response with GP practice size, area-level deprivation and COVID-19 restrictions. (3) Reasons for non-participation.Univariate linear regression analyses were performed to assess the association between practice size and area deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation), with positive response rates per GP practice. The impact of COVID-19 isolation policies was assessed visually by comparing positive response rates across different restriction phases. Results: Of the 13 814 invited participants, 12 816 (93%) did not respond. Of the 998 (7%) who responded, 690 (69%) were willing to participate (positive response), while 308 (31%) declined (negative response). Of the 308 negative responders, 209 provided a reason for not being willing or able to participate. The most frequently cited reason was the requirement to use a smartphone (40%), with 33% reporting they did not have a smartphone or internet access and 7% stating that they were unable or willing to use one. There was no association between response rate and COVID-19 restrictions on public life. Conclusions: In deprived areas, most people invited to participate in a dementia prevention study via their GP practice did not respond. Smartphone use emerged as a barrier to participation in this population. Our results suggest that major efforts are needed to reduce participation bias, increase generalisability of study results and address health inequalities in preventive interventions. Trial registration number: ISRCTN15986016.

Indexed as

Preventive MedicinePublic Health

Identifiers

PMID42712339
PMCPMC13528400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.