Trends in Health Information Technology Use Among the US Population With and Without Cardiovascular Risk Factors, 2012-2018: Evidence From the National Health Interview Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has required clinicians to pivot to offering services via telehealth; however, it is unclear which patients (users of care) are equipped to use digital health. This is especially pertinent for adults managing chronic diseases, such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, which require regular follow-up, medication management, and self-monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to measure the trends and assess factors affecting health information technology (HIT) use among members of the US population with and without cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: We used serial cross-sectional data from the National Health Interview Survey for the years 2012-2018 to assess trends in HIT use among adults, stratified by age and cardiovascular risk factor status. We developed multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race, insurance status, marital status, geographic region, and perceived health status to assess the likelihood of HIT use among patients with and without cardiovascular disease risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 14,304 (44.6%) and 14,644 (58.7%) participants reported using HIT in 2012 and 2018, respectively. When comparing the rates of HIT use for the years 2012 and 2018, among participants without cardiovascular risk factors, the HIT use proportion increased from 51.1% to 65.8%; among those with one risk factor, it increased from 43.9% to 59%; and among those with more than one risk factor, it increased from 41.3% to 54.7%. Increasing trends in HIT use were highest among adults aged >65 years (annual percentage change [APC] 8.3%), who had more than one cardiovascular risk factor (APC 5%) and among those who did not graduate from high school (APC 8.8%). Likelihood of HIT use was significantly higher in individuals who were younger, female, and non-Hispanic White; had higher education and income; were married; and reported very good or excellent health status. In 2018, college graduates were 7.18 (95% CI 5.86-8.79), 6.25 (95% CI 5.02-7.78), or 7.80 (95% CI 5.87-10.36) times more likely to use HIT compared to adults without high school education among people with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, one cardiovascular risk factor, or no cardiovascular risk factors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2012-2018, HIT use increased nationally, with greater use noted among younger and higher educated US adults. Targeted strategies are needed to engage wider age, racial, education, and socioeconomic groups by lowering barriers to HIT access and use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".