Editorial: Socioeconomic inequalities in digital health
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ensure progress benefits all. As digital technologies increasingly shape the contours of healthcare, this principle demands renewed reflection. In a globally connected world, pandemics and health crises remind us that no population is truly isolated. Inequities in digital health preparedness and response in one region can have ripple effects worldwide.Thus, global cooperation and equitable digital infrastructure are essential.The research contributions in this special collection, Socioeconomic Inequalities in Digital Health, illuminate both the opportunities and the tensions at the heart of this issue. A narrative review by Awosiku et al. (2025) Crucially, digital exclusion is not confined to low-income countries. A cross-sectional study by Claudio et al. (2025) at a paediatric hospital in Canada reveals that even in high-income settings, the digital divide persists. While most caregivers had access to digital devices, 23% encountered challenges with technological familiarity and expressed concerns about data security. These findings highlight that digital readiness cannot be assumed and must be intentionally cultivated, especially among vulnerable and underserved groups. Together, these studies present a complex but hopeful picture. They remind us that digital health, if designed inclusively, can be a powerful tool for equity, but if left unchecked, it may reproduce the very injustices it seeks to overcome. These insights challenge us to see digital health not merely as a technical endeavour but as a profoundly human one. As The Promise of World Peace observes, "The process of planetization is at work, integrating peoples and cultures, reshaping institutions, and forging bonds of mutual dependence and collaboration." When guided by compassion and foresight, digital health can become a vital part of this process, promoting dignity, justice, and well-being across all levels of society.In the context of digital health, "planetization" means designing systems that transcend national, racial, and economic divides-systems grounded in ethics and shaped by the lived realities of those they aim to serve. It reminds us that innovation without purpose is insufficient. Only through equity, accessibility, and cultural humility can digital health fulfill its transformative potential. This means not only addressing disparities but reimagining health systems to reflect the unity of humanity.To realise this vision, researchers must continue to interrogate both the impacts and blind spots of digital innovation; policymakers must craft frameworks that prioritise inclusion over scale; and practitioners must advocate for solutions that are as compassionate as they are cutting-edge. The task before us is not only technical-it is moral, social, and shared.Inclusive digital health policies must prioritise the marginalised, not merely enhance convenience for the already privileged. By prioritising the needs of the most vulnerable, we strengthen the fabric of health systems for all. When guided by shared purpose, justice, and the recognition of our oneness, digital health can unite humanity, fostering solidarity instead of division. This Research Topic offers both evidence and inspiration to help guide us along that vital path.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».