Landscape of Digital Technologies Used in the National Health Service in England: Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In England, digital technologies are exploited to transform the way health and social care is provided and encompass a wide range of hardware devices and software that are used in all aspects of health care. However, little is known about the extent to which health care providers differ in digital health technology capabilities and how this relates to geographical and regional differences in health care capacities and resources. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to identify the set of digital technologies that have been deployed by the National Health Services clinical commissioning groups (NHS CCGs) in England. In doing this, we respond to calls to shed light on the internal dynamics and variation in the form of digital capability in England in terms of health service regional differences and health diversity, equity, and inclusion. METHODS: We collected 135 annual reports that belong to 106 NHS CCGs in England, comprising more than 18,000 pages in total, released from 2020 to 2021. Using this data set, we identified 2163 pages related to digital technologies and labeled them using content analysis. We follow the construct taxonomy used by digital options theory, a theory from the management information systems field analyzing organizational resource investment choices, in classifying observed technologies according to digital themes-inherent design patterns that we identified and explained. We then used a hierarchical clustering method to extract groups of NHS CCGs that implement similar technology themes. RESULTS: We found 31 technologies from the reports and grouped them into 9 digital themes. The 9 themes were further assigned to 1 of the 3 constructs of digital options theory, the identification of patients' requirements (we identified information portals [76/106], digital health engagement [67/106], and digital inclusion support [45/106]), the development of new work patterns (we identified telehealth [87/106], telemedicine [35/106], and care home technologies [40/106]), the realization of improvements in efficiency and public accessibility (we identified online booking [26/106], online triage [104/106], and digital mental health services [74/106]). The 3 clusters of CCGs are identified based on the 8 themes (Hopkins=0.9914, silhouette=0.186), namely (1) digitally disengaged, (2) digitally engaged, and (3) digital torchbearer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show prominent digital themes within each construct group, namely information portals, telehealth, and online triage, covering people's fundamental health information needs. Almost half of CCGs fell into the digitally disengaged group, and all London CCGs (5/106) belonged to this group. We propose that practitioners should offer specialized assistance to regions with limited digital engagement, emphasizing digital health literacy, inclusion support, and ongoing evaluation, rather than concentrating solely on technical advancements.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".