| Literature DB >> 32819317 |
Florence Samkange-Zeeb1, Liubov Borisova2, Beatriz Padilla3,4, Hannah Bradby2, Jenny Phillimore5, Hajo Zeeb6,7, Tilman Brand1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of factors associated with the use of Internet-based health information generally focus on general, rather than migrant populations. This study looked into the reasons why Internet-based health information is used and the effects of migration-related factors, other socio-demographic characteristics and health-related factors on the tendency to consult the Internet.Entities:
Keywords: Digital divide; Internet-based health information; Migration
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32819317 PMCID: PMC7439663 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09329-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Weighted sample characteristics and proportion of participants across all four cities stratified according to relying on Internet-based health information for at least one of the given scenarios
| Sample characteristics (%) | Internet-based health information mostly relied on (%) (95%-CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | ||
| Total ( | 100 | 65.5 (63.2–67.6) | 34.5 (32.4–36.8) |
| City, Country | |||
| Birmingham, UK | 20.4 | 66.4 (62.0–70.6) | 33.6 (29.4–38.0) |
| Bremen, Germany | 33.5 | 53.6 (49.8–57.3) | 46.4 (42.7–50.2) |
| Lisbon, Portugal | 22.6 | 91.8 (89.7–93.9) | 8.2 (6.1–10.9) |
| Uppsala, Sweden | 23.6 | 56.3 (50.4–61.9) | 43.7 (38.1–49.6) |
| Age groups in years | |||
| 18–29 | 26.9 | 55.0 (49.5–60.4) | 45.0 (39.6–50.5) |
| 40–44 | 25.8 | 57.2 (52.7–61.6) | 42.8 (38.4–47.3) |
| 45–59 | 21.5 | 71.2 (67.2–75.0) | 28.8 (25.0–32.8) |
| ≥ 60 | 25.8 | 79.8 (76.9–82.4) | 20.2 (17.6–23.1) |
| Gender | |||
| Women | 51.1 | 65.1 (62.2–67.9) | 34.9 (32.1–37.8) |
| Men | 48.9 | 65.8 (62.4–69.1) | 34.2 (30.9–37.6) |
| Education | |||
| Low | 34.8 | 86.2 (82.7–89.0) | 13.8 (11.0–17.3) |
| Medium | 33.3 | 57.9 (53.9–61.8) | 42.1 (38.2–46.1) |
| High | 31.9 | 50.8 (47.0–54.6) | 49.2 (45.4–53.0) |
| Unemployed | |||
| Yes | 9.3 | 77.1 (70.1–82.8) | 22.9 (17.2–29.9) |
| No | 90.7 | 64.3 (61.9–66.6) | 35.7 (33.4–38.1) |
| Migration background | |||
| None | 52.8 | 64.9 (62.0–67.7) | 35.1 (32.3–38.0) |
| Migrant | 29.3 | 74.3 (70.5–77.7) | 25.7 (22.3–29.5) |
| Descendants of migrants | 17.9 | 52.7 (46.3–58.9) | 47.3 (41.1–53.7) |
| Region of origin | |||
| No migration background | 52.8 | 64.9 (62.0–67.8) | 35.1 (32.2–38.0) |
| EU-15 | 6.3 | 60.3 (50.1–69.7) | 39.7 (30.3–49.9) |
| EU-28 | 5.5 | 54.8 (45.6–63.7) | 45.2 (36.3–54.5) |
| Non-EU | 35.4 | 68.8 (64.8–72.5) | 31.2 (27.5–35.2) |
| Years living in the countrya | |||
| 0–10 | 38.1 | 74.0 (67.5–79.6) | 26.0 (20.4–32.5) |
| 11–20 | 24.6 | 72.8 (63.7–80.3) | 27.2 (19.7–36.3) |
| > 20 | 37.3 | 76.5 (70.5–81.7) | 23.5 (18.3–29.5) |
| Local language competencya | |||
| Poor/fair | 31.9 | 89.9 (84.6–93.6) | 10.1 (6.4–15.4) |
| Good/very good | 68.1 | 66.8 (61.8–71.5) | 33.2 (28.5–38.2) |
| Health literacyb | |||
| Low | 11.9 | 77.0 (70.1–82.8) | 23.0 (17.2–29.9) |
| Medium/high | 88.1 | 66.6 (64.3–69.3) | 33.1 (30.7–35.7) |
| Self-rated health | |||
| Poor | 22.5 | 81.6 (77.9–84.8) | 18.4 (15.2–22.1) |
| Good | 77.5 | 60.8 (58.2–63.4) | 39.2 (36.6–41.8) |
| Trust in physiciansb | |||
| Low | 25.6 | 53.8 (48.9–58.7) | 46.2 (41.3–51.1) |
| Medium | 44.8 | 67.6 (64.0–71.1) | 32.4 (28.9–36.0) |
| High | 29.6 | 80.2 (76.2–83.8) | 19.8 (16.3–23.8) |
| Perceived discrimination | |||
| No | 93.2 | 66.1 (63.8–68.4) | 33.9 (31.6–36.2) |
| Yes | 6.8 | 56.4 (48.2–64.3) | 43.6 (35.7–51.8) |
Note: Sample characteristics were weighted by the age and gender distribution of the underlying population
a assessed only among migrants
bnot assessed in Sweden
Fig. 1Distribution of resources participants mostly relied on for the given scenarios
Socio-demographic, migration-related and health-related factors associated with relying on the Internet-based information when addressing health concerns (multivariable logistic regression)
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.68 (0.50–0.93)* | – | 0.65 (0.46–0.93)* | |
| 1.02 (0.74–1.41) | – | 1.00 (0.71–1.41) | |
| Bremen, DE | 1.44 (1.06–1.94)* | 1.50 (1.10–2.06)* | 1.36 (0.99–1.87) |
| Lisbon, PT | 0.21 (0.14–0.32)* | 0.23 (0.15–0.34)* | 0.22 (0.15–0.34)* |
| Uppsala, SW | 1.27 (0.88–1.85) | 1. 28 (0.87–1. 88) | – |
| 30–44 | 0.97 (0.70–1.34) | 1.03 (0.74–1.43) | 0.69 (0.48–0,.99)* |
| 45–59 | 0.46 (0.33–0.64)* | 0.46 (0.33–0.65)* | 0.37 (0.25–0.53)* |
| ≥ 60 | 0.29 (0.21–0.40)* | 0.29 (0.21–0.40)* | 0.21 (0.15–0.31)* |
| | 0.85 (0.67–1.06) | 0.86 (0.68–1.08) | 0.79 (0.62–1.03) |
| | 0.29 (0.20–0.43)* | 0.31 (0.22–0.45)* | 0.35 (0.24–0.50)* |
| | 0.68 (0.53–0.87)* | 0.67 (0.52–0.86)* | 0.72 (0.54–0.97)* |
| Yes | 0.69 (0.46–1.04) | 0.69 (0.45–1.03) | 0.68 (0.43–1.07) |
| | – | 0.84 (0.51–1.39) | – |
| | – | 1.10 (0.67–1.79) | – |
| | – | 1.09 (0.74–1.59) | – |
| | – | 0.86 (0.57–1.28) | – |
| | – | 0.25 (0.14–0.45)* | – |
| | – | – | 0.84 (0.59–1.20) |
| | – | – | 0.87 (0.55–1.38) |
| | – | – | 2.13 (1.47–3.10)* |
| | – | – | 1.66 (1.18–2.32)* |
| | – | – | 1.09 (0.67–1.76) |
Note: Sample characteristics were weighted by the age and gender distribution of the underlying population
*p < 0.05
#Sweden excluded from model 3 as information on health literacy and trust in physicians was not collected