Digitally Disconnected: Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on the Digital Divide and Potential Solutions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As telemedicine utilization increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, divergent usage patterns for video and audio-only telephone visits emerged. Older, low-income, minority, and non-English speaking Medicaid patients are at highest risk of experiencing technology access and digital literacy barriers. This raises concern for disparities in health care access and widening of the "digital divide," the separation of those with technological access and knowledge and those without. While studies demonstrate correlation between racial and socioeconomic demographics and technological access and ability, individual patients' perspectives of the divide and its impacts remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to interview patients to understand their perspectives on (1) the definition, causes, and impact of the digital divide; (2) whose responsibility it is to address this divide, and (3) potential solutions to mitigate the digital divide. METHODS: Between December 2020 and March 2021, we conducted 54 semistructured telephone interviews with adult patients and parents of pediatric patients who had virtual visits (phone, video, or both) between March and September 2020 at the University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) primary care clinics. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze interview data. RESULTS: Patients were keenly aware of the digital divide and described impacts beyond health care, including employment, education, community and social contexts, and personal economic stability. Patients described that individuals, government, libraries, schools, health care organizations, and even private businesses all shared the responsibility to address the divide. Proposed solutions to address the divide included conducting community technology needs assessments and improving technology access, literacy training, and resource awareness. Recognizing that some individuals will never cross the divide, patients also emphasized continued support of low-tech communication methods and health care delivery to prevent widening of the digital divide. Furthermore, patients viewed technology access and literacy as drivers of the social determinants of health (SDOH), profoundly influencing how SDOH function to worsen or improve health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives provide valuable insight into the digital divide and can inform solutions to mitigate health and resulting societal inequities. Future work is needed to understand the digital needs of disconnected individuals and communities. As clinical care and delivery continue to integrate telehealth, studies are needed to explore whether having a video or audio-only phone visit results in different patient outcomes and utilization. Advocacy efforts to disseminate public and private resources can also expand device and broadband internet access, improve technology literacy, and increase funding to support both high- and low-tech forms of health care delivery for the disconnected.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».