The Effect of Remote Digital Services on Health Care Inequalities Among People Under Long-Term Dermatology Follow-Up: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the expansion of remote digital dermatology services from the National Health Service, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need for methods that identify patients at risk of digital exclusion to guide equitable representation in service co-design processes and tailor remote services to the needs of their patient population. OBJECTIVE: This quality improvement project aims to inform the redesign of remote services to optimally support the ongoing needs of patients with chronic skin diseases, ensuring that the services are tailored to patients' digital health literacy requirements. METHODS: We profiled the digital health literacy of 123 people with chronic skin conditions who require long-term surveillance in 2 specialist clinics (London, United Kingdom) using the Multidimensional Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology (READHY) questionnaire alongside the Optimizing Health Literacy and Access (Ophelia) process for hierarchical cluster analysis. RESULTS: The cluster analysis of READHY dimensions in responding participants (n=116) revealed 7 groups with distinct digital and health literacy characteristics. High READHY scores in groups 1 (n=22, 19%) and 2 (n=20, 17.2%) represent those who are confident with managing their health and using technology, whereas the lower-scoring groups, 6 (n=4, 3.4%) and 7 (n=12, 10.3%), depended on traditional services. Groups 3 (n=27, 23.3%), 4 (n=23, 19.8%), and 5 (n=8, 6.9%) had varying digital skills, access, and engagement, highlighting a population that may benefit from a co-designed dermatology service. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying patient groups with distinguishable patterns of digital access and health literacy, our method demonstrates that 63.8% (n=74) of people attending specialist clinics in our center require support in order to optimize remote follow-up or need an alternative approach. Future efforts should streamline the READHY question profile to improve its practicality and use focus groups to elicit strategies for engaging patients with digital services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".