Sophie Turnbull1, Patricia J Lucas2, Alastair D Hay3, Christie Cabral3. 1. Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Sophie.turnbull@bristol.ac.uk. 2. School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, UK. 3. Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a common chronic disease, with socially patterned incidence and severity. Digital self-care interventions have the potential to reduce health disparities, by providing personalised low-cost reusable resources that can increase access to health interventions. However, if under-served groups are unable to access or use digital technologies, Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) might make no difference, or worse, exacerbate health inequity. STUDY AIMS: To gain insights into how and why people with T2D access and use DHTs and how experiences vary between individuals and social groups. METHODS: A purposive sample of people with experience of using a DHT to help them self-care for T2D were recruited through diabetes and community groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person and over the phone. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: A diverse sample of 21 participants were interviewed. Health care practitioners were not viewed as a good source of information about DHTs that could support T2D. Instead participants relied on their digital skills and social networks to learn about what DHTs are available and helpful. The main barriers to accessing and using DHT described by the participants were availability of DHTs from the NHS, cost and technical proficiency. However, some participants described how they were able to draw on social resources such as their social networks and social status to overcome these barriers. Participants were motivated to use DHTs because they provided self-care support, a feeling of control over T2D, and personalised advice or feedback. The selection of technology was also guided by participants' preferences and what they valued in relation to DHTs and self-care support, and these in turn were influenced by age and gender. CONCLUSION: This research indicates that low levels of digital skills and high cost of digital health interventions can create barriers to the access and use of DHTs to support the self-care of T2D. However, social networks and social status can be leveraged to overcome some of these challenges. If digital interventions are to decrease rather than exacerbate health inequalities, these barriers and facilitators to access and use must be considered when DHTs are developed and implemented.
BACKGROUND:Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a common chronic disease, with socially patterned incidence and severity. Digital self-care interventions have the potential to reduce health disparities, by providing personalised low-cost reusable resources that can increase access to health interventions. However, if under-served groups are unable to access or use digital technologies, Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) might make no difference, or worse, exacerbate health inequity. STUDY AIMS: To gain insights into how and why people with T2D access and use DHTs and how experiences vary between individuals and social groups. METHODS: A purposive sample of people with experience of using a DHT to help them self-care for T2D were recruited through diabetes and community groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person and over the phone. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: A diverse sample of 21 participants were interviewed. Health care practitioners were not viewed as a good source of information about DHTs that could support T2D. Instead participants relied on their digital skills and social networks to learn about what DHTs are available and helpful. The main barriers to accessing and using DHT described by the participants were availability of DHTs from the NHS, cost and technical proficiency. However, some participants described how they were able to draw on social resources such as their social networks and social status to overcome these barriers. Participants were motivated to use DHTs because they provided self-care support, a feeling of control over T2D, and personalised advice or feedback. The selection of technology was also guided by participants' preferences and what they valued in relation to DHTs and self-care support, and these in turn were influenced by age and gender. CONCLUSION: This research indicates that low levels of digital skills and high cost of digital health interventions can create barriers to the access and use of DHTs to support the self-care of T2D. However, social networks and social status can be leveraged to overcome some of these challenges. If digital interventions are to decrease rather than exacerbate health inequalities, these barriers and facilitators to access and use must be considered when DHTs are developed and implemented.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic conditions; Diabetes; Digital divide; Digital health; Ehealth; Health equity; Health inequalities; Web interventions
Authors: G K Berland; M N Elliott; L S Morales; J I Algazy; R L Kravitz; M S Broder; D E Kanouse; J A Muñoz; J A Puyol; M Lara; K E Watkins; H Yang; E A McGlynn Journal: JAMA Date: 2001 May 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Edwin D Boudreaux; Molly E Waring; Rashelle B Hayes; Rajani S Sadasivam; Sean Mullen; Sherry Pagoto Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jordi Alonso; Montserrat Ferrer; Barbara Gandek; John E Ware; Neil K Aaronson; Paola Mosconi; Niels K Rasmussen; Monika Bullinger; Shunichi Fukuhara; Stein Kaasa; Alain Leplège Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michael Stellefson; Beth Chaney; Adam E Barry; Enmanuel Chavarria; Bethany Tennant; Kim Walsh-Childers; P S Sriram; Justin Zagora Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Rocío Zamanillo-Campos; Maria Jesús Serrano-Ripoll; Joana Maria Taltavull-Aparicio; Elena Gervilla-García; Joana Ripoll; Maria Antonia Fiol-deRoque; Anne-Marie Boylan; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 3.390