ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Smartphone barrier: uncovering the digital divide in mHealth prevention among disadvantaged middle-aged and older-aged UK communities.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.