Uptake and adoption of the NHS App in England: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Technological advances have led to the use of patient portals that give people digital access to their personal health information. The NHS App was launched in January 2019 as a ‘front door’ to digitally enabled health services. Aim To evaluate patterns of uptake of the NHS App, subgroup differences in registration, and the impact of COVID-19. Design and setting An observational study using monthly NHS App user data at general-practice level in England was conducted. Method Descriptive statistics and time-series analysis explored monthly NHS App use from January 2019–May 2021. Interrupted time-series models were used to identify changes in the level and trend of use of different functionalities, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown. Negative binomial regression assessed differences in app registration by markers of general-practice level sociodemographic variables. Result Between January 2019 and May 2021, there were 8 524 882 NHS App downloads and 4 449 869 registrations, with a 4-fold increase in App downloads when the COVID Pass feature was introduced. Analyses by sociodemographic data found 25% lower registrations in the most deprived practices ( P <0.001), and 44% more registrations in the largest sized practices ( P <0.001). Registration rates were 36% higher in practices with the highest proportion of registered White patients ( P <0.001), 23% higher in practices with the largest proportion of 15–34-year-olds ( P <0.001) and 2% lower in practices with highest proportion of people with long-term care needs ( P <0.001). Conclusion The uptake of the NHS App substantially increased post-lockdown, most significantly after the NHS COVID Pass feature was introduced. An unequal pattern of app registration was identified, and the use of different functions varied. Further research is needed to understand these patterns of inequalities and their impact on patient experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".