Assessing the Role of Digital Literacy in Accessing and Utilising Virtual Healthcare Services: A Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Emerging digital technologies are accelerating the transition of healthcare services from traditional in-person settings to virtual platforms. As a result, digital literacy is becoming essential for individuals to effectively engage with these services. However, inadequate digital literacy poses a significant barrier to both accessing and utilising virtual healthcare, potentially widening existing health disparities. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This protocol outlines the approach for systematically reviewing and synthesising the existing literature on the influence of digital literacy on accessing and utilising virtual healthcare services. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search will be conducted across five databases: Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, CINAHL and IEEE Xplore, covering publications from 2014 to 2024. The review will include all age cohorts and demographics, focusing on studies that examine digital literacy and measures of access to and utilisation of virtual healthcare services. Two independent reviewers will screen studies using pre-determined search strategies for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study will provide valuable insights into the challenges and facilitators of digital literacy in engaging with virtual healthcare services. This review will also offer evidence-based recommendations to optimise digital health interventions and promote inclusive, equitable healthcare delivery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".