Digital Health Readiness: Making Digital Health Care More Inclusive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes an approach to assess digital health readiness in clinical settings to understand how prepared, experienced, and equipped individual people are to participate in digital health activities. Existing digital health literacy and telehealth prediction tools exist but do not assess technological aptitude for particular tasks or incorporate available electronic health record data to improve efficiency and efficacy. As such, we propose a multidomain digital health readiness assessment that incorporates a person's stated goals and motivations for use of digital health, a focused digital health literacy assessment, passively collected data from the electronic health record, and a focused aptitude assessment for critical skills needed to achieve a person's goals. This combination of elements should allow for easy integration into clinical workflows and make the assessment as actionable as possible for health care providers and in-clinic digital health navigators. Digital health readiness profiles could be used to match individuals with support interventions to promote the use of digital tools like telehealth, mobile apps, and remote monitoring, especially for those who are motivated but do not have adequate experience. Moreover, while effective and holistic digital health readiness assessments could contribute to increased use and greater equity in digital health engagement, they must also be designed with inclusivity in mind to avoid worsening known disparities in digital health care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".