Ivana Paccoud1, Michèle Baumann1, Etienne Le Bihan1, Benoît Pétré2, Mareike Breinbauer3, Philip Böhme4, Louis Chauvel1, Anja K Leist5. 1. Department of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 3. Department of General Medicine and Geriatrics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 4. Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Nutrition, Regional Network LORDIAMN, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France. 5. Department of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality, University of Luxembourg, Belval Campus, 4366, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg. anja.leist@uni.lu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to and use of digital technology are more common among people of more advantaged socioeconomic status. These differences might be due to lack of interest, not having physical access or having lower intentions to use this technology. By integrating the digital divide approach and the User Acceptance of Information Technology (UTAUT) model, this study aims to further our understanding of socioeconomic factors and the mechanisms linked to different stages in the use of Personal Health Records (PHR): desire, intentions and physical access to PHR. METHODS: A cross-sectional online and in-person survey was undertaken in the areas of Lorraine (France), Luxembourg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland (Germany), and Wallonia (Belgium). Exploratory factor analysis was performed to group items derived from the UTAUT model. We applied linear and logistic regressions controlling for country-level heterogeneity, health and demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 829 individuals aged over 18 completed the questionnaire. Socioeconomic inequalities were present in the access to and use of PHR. Education and income played a significant role in individuals' desire to access their PHR. Being older than 65 years, and migrant, were negatively associated with desire to access PHR. An income gradient was found in having physical access to PHR, while for the subgroup of respondents who expressed desire to have access, higher educational level was positively associated with intentions to regularly use PHR. In fully adjusted models testing the contribution of UTAUT-derived factors, individuals who perceived PHRs to be useful and had the necessary digital skills were more inclined to use their PHR regularly. Social influence, support and lack of anxiety in using technology were strong predictors of regular PHR use. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the importance of considering all stages in PHR use: desire to access, physical access and intention to regularly use PHRs, while paying special attention to migrants and people with less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds who may feel financial constraints and are not able to exploit the potential of PHRs. As PHR use is expected to come with health benefits, facilitating access and regular use for those less inclined could reduce health inequalities and advance health equity.
BACKGROUND: Access to and use of digital technology are more common among people of more advantaged socioeconomic status. These differences might be due to lack of interest, not having physical access or having lower intentions to use this technology. By integrating the digital divide approach and the User Acceptance of Information Technology (UTAUT) model, this study aims to further our understanding of socioeconomic factors and the mechanisms linked to different stages in the use of Personal Health Records (PHR): desire, intentions and physical access to PHR. METHODS: A cross-sectional online and in-person survey was undertaken in the areas of Lorraine (France), Luxembourg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland (Germany), and Wallonia (Belgium). Exploratory factor analysis was performed to group items derived from the UTAUT model. We applied linear and logistic regressions controlling for country-level heterogeneity, health and demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 829 individuals aged over 18 completed the questionnaire. Socioeconomic inequalities were present in the access to and use of PHR. Education and income played a significant role in individuals' desire to access their PHR. Being older than 65 years, and migrant, were negatively associated with desire to access PHR. An income gradient was found in having physical access to PHR, while for the subgroup of respondents who expressed desire to have access, higher educational level was positively associated with intentions to regularly use PHR. In fully adjusted models testing the contribution of UTAUT-derived factors, individuals who perceived PHRs to be useful and had the necessary digital skills were more inclined to use their PHR regularly. Social influence, support and lack of anxiety in using technology were strong predictors of regular PHR use. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the importance of considering all stages in PHR use: desire to access, physical access and intention to regularly use PHRs, while paying special attention to migrants and people with less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds who may feel financial constraints and are not able to exploit the potential of PHRs. As PHR use is expected to come with health benefits, facilitating access and regular use for those less inclined could reduce health inequalities and advance health equity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital divide; Health inequalities; Health inequities; Personal health records; User acceptance of information technology
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; Peter J Joski; Edmund R Becker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: John Hsu; Jie Huang; James Kinsman; Bruce Fireman; Robert Miller; Joseph Selby; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Naleef Fareed; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Daniel Weiss; Håvard T Rydland; Emil Øversveen; Magnus Rom Jensen; Solvor Solhaug; Steinar Krokstad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bas Hoogenbosch; Jeroen Postma; Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel; Nicole Am Tiemessen; Johannes Jm van Delden; Harmieke van Os-Medendorp Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Adèle Gauthier; Cécile Lagarde; France Mourey; Patrick Manckoundia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390