IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v350y2024ics0277953624003393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The potential and paradoxes of eHealth research for digitally marginalised groups: A qualitative meta-review

Author

Listed:
  • Coetzer, Jessica A.
  • Loukili, Ibrahim
  • Goedhart, Nicole S.
  • Ket, Johannes C.F.
  • Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan
  • Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
  • Dedding, Christine

Abstract

Whilst the transformation towards digital healthcare is accelerating, there is still a substantial risk of excluding people with a distance to the online world. Groups like people with a low socioeconomic position, people with a migrant background or the elderly, who are already most at risk of experiencing health inequalities, are simultaneously experiencing increased digital exclusion. Researchers play a role in determining how eHealth access is framed and can thus impact how the barriers to its use are addressed. This qualitative meta-review critically evaluates the way researchers (as authors) discuss eHealth use in digitally marginalised groups. Specifically, it seeks to understand how eHealth is framed to address existing health systems problems; how the barriers to eHealth use are presented and which solutions are provided in response; and who authors suggest should be responsible for making eHealth work. The results of this review found four paradoxes in how current literature views eHealth use. Firstly, that health systems problems are complex and nuanced, yet eHealth is seen as a simple answer. Secondly, that there are many political, social and health systems-based solutions suggested to address eHealth use, however most of the identified barriers are individually framed. This focus on personal deficits results in misallocating responsibility for making these systemic improvements. Thirdly, although eHealth is meant to simplify the tasks of patients and healthcare workers, these are the groups most often burdened with the responsibility of ensuring its success. Lastly, despite tailoring eHealth to the user being the most suggested solution, researchers generally speak about groups as a homogenous entity – thus rendering tailoring difficult. Ultimately, this review finds that a shift to focus research on addressing systemic issues on a systems level is necessary to prevent further exacerbating existing health inequalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Coetzer, Jessica A. & Loukili, Ibrahim & Goedhart, Nicole S. & Ket, Johannes C.F. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan & Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun & Dedding, Christine, 2024. "The potential and paradoxes of eHealth research for digitally marginalised groups: A qualitative meta-review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:350:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624003393
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624003393
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116895?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:350:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624003393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.