Exploring the digital divide: results of a survey informing mobile application development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Mobile health apps risk widening health disparities if they overlook digital inclusion. The digital divide, encompassing access, familiarity, and readiness, poses a significant barrier to medical interventions. Existing literature lacks exploration of the digital divide's contributing factors. Hence, data are needed to comprehend the challenges in developing inclusive health apps. Methods: We created a survey to gauge internet and smartphone access, smartphone familiarity, and readiness for using mobile health apps among caregivers of pediatric patients in tertiary care. Open-ended questions solicited feedback and suggestions on mobile health applications. Responses were categorized by similarity and compared. Developed with patient partners, the survey underwent cognitive testing and piloting for accuracy. Results: Data from 209 respondents showed that 23% were affected by the digital divide, mainly due to unfamiliarity with digital skills. Among 49 short text responses about health app concerns, 31 mentioned security and confidentiality, with 7 mentioning the impersonal nature of such apps. Desired features included messaging healthcare providers, scheduling, task reminders, and simplicity. Conclusions: This study underscores a digital divide among caregivers of pediatric patients, with nearly a quarter affected primarily due to a lack of digital comfort. Respondents emphasized user-friendliness and online security for health apps. Future apps should prioritize digital inclusion by addressing the significant barriers and carefully considering patient and family concerns.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".