ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Exploratory Analysis of the Digital Health Gender Paradox in Consumer-Facing Digital Health Technology Adoption: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. 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
backgroundDigital health technologies have become integral to modern health care, yet consumer adoption remains uneven. These technologies span a range of consumer-facing tools, including remote care services, mobile apps, wearable devices, conversational agents, and digital medication services, with uptake varying considerably across tool types and by gender. An earlier analysis of this dataset revealed a gender paradox: women reported higher digital literacy compared to men yet demonstrated lower adoption and curiosity toward digital health tools. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behavior (COM-B) model proposes that behavior occurs when individuals have the capability (skills and confidence), opportunity (access, affordability, and contextual support), and motivation (trust, perceived usefulness, and willingness) to act.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine associations between digital literacy, self-reported COM-B domains, gender, and adoption across digital health technologies and to explore whether these associations differ by gender.
methodsThis cross-sectional quantitative study with an integrated qualitative component enrolled 416 adults and used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between COM-B domains and adoption across five consumer-facing digital health technologies. Exploratory gender-by-predictor interaction and gender-stratified analyses examined potential gender-specific patterns, while self-reported reasons for nonuse were mapped to COM-B domains using directed content analysis.
resultsWomen had lower odds of chatbot/virtual assistant use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.59), marginally lower odds of e-pharmacy use (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22-1.01), and higher odds of mobile health (mHealth) app use (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 1.28-5.25). Of 20 exploratory interaction tests, chatbot digital literacy-by-gender (P=.021) and capability-by-gender (P=.044) interactions were nominally significant. In directed barrier analysis, the gender distribution differed significantly for mHealth apps (P=.009), whereas the wearable result showed a trend (P=.079); motivation-related barriers were most frequent for most technologies.
conclusionsBehavioral determinants of digital health technology adoption varied by technology type. Women used several technologies less often than men despite reporting higher digital literacy, capability, and motivation, and opportunity emerged as the most consistent factor across the models examined. Exploratory analyses suggested these patterns may differ by gender for selected technologies but did not support a single gender-differentiated pathway. These findings are exploratory and require confirmation in larger studies.
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.