Assessing Health Technology Literacy and Attitudes of Patients in an Urban Outpatient Psychiatry Clinic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies are increasingly being integrated into mental health care. However, the adoption of these technologies can be influenced by patients' digital literacy and attitudes, which may vary based on sociodemographic factors. This variability necessitates a better understanding of patient digital literacy and attitudes to prevent a digital divide, which can worsen existing health care disparities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess digital literacy and attitudes toward digital health technologies among a diverse psychiatric outpatient population. In addition, the study sought to identify clusters of patients based on their digital literacy and attitudes, and to compare sociodemographic characteristics among these clusters. METHODS: A survey was distributed to adult psychiatric patients with various diagnoses in an urban outpatient psychiatry program. The survey included a demographic questionnaire, a digital literacy questionnaire, and a digital health attitudes questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify predictors of digital literacy and attitudes. Cluster analysis was performed to categorize patients based on their responses. Pairwise comparisons and one-way ANOVA were conducted to analyze differences between clusters. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 32 (SD 12.6, range 16-70) years. The sample was racially and ethnically diverse: White (100/256, 38.9%), Black (39/256, 15.2%), Latinx (44/256, 17.2%), Asian (59/256, 23%), and other races and ethnicities (15/256, 5.7%). Digital literacy was high for technologies such as smartphones, videoconferencing, and social media (items with >75%, 193/256 of participants reporting at least some use) but lower for health apps, mental health apps, wearables, and virtual reality (items with <42%, 108/256 reporting at least some use). Attitudes toward using technology in clinical care were generally positive (9 out of 10 items received >75% positive score), particularly for communication with providers and health data sharing. Older age (P<.001) and lower educational attainment (P<.001) negatively predicted digital literacy scores, but no demographic variables predicted attitude scores. Cluster analysis identified 3 patient groups. Relative to the other clusters, cluster 1 (n=30) had lower digital literacy and intermediate acceptance of digital technology. Cluster 2 (n=50) had higher literacy and lower acceptance. Cluster 3 (n=176) displayed both higher literacy and acceptance. Significant between-cluster differences were observed in mean age and education level between clusters (P<.001), with cluster 1 participants being older and having lower levels of formal education. CONCLUSIONS: High digital literacy and acceptance of digital technologies were observed among our patients, indicating a generally positive outlook for digital health clinics. Our results also found that patients of older age and lower formal levels of educational attainment had lower digital literacy, highlighting the need for targeted interventions to support those who may struggle with adopting digital health tools.
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».