Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, VU University, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Ethics, Law & Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1089a, F-vleugel medische faculteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Jun;350:116895. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116895. Epub 2024 Apr 18.
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.
虽然向数字医疗保健的转变正在加速,但仍然存在将与网络世界存在一定距离的人群排除在外的巨大风险。那些处于社会经济地位较低、移民背景或老年人等已经处于健康不平等风险最大的群体,同时也面临着越来越大的数字排斥。研究人员在确定电子健康的获取方式方面发挥着作用,因此可以影响解决其使用障碍的方式。本定性元综述批判性地评估了研究人员(作为作者)讨论数字边缘化群体中电子健康使用的方式。具体而言,它旨在了解如何构建电子健康以解决现有医疗系统问题;如何呈现电子健康使用的障碍以及针对这些障碍提供了哪些解决方案;以及作者建议谁应该负责使电子健康发挥作用。该综述的结果发现,当前文献对电子健康使用的看法存在四个悖论。首先,医疗系统问题是复杂且微妙的,但电子健康被视为一个简单的答案。其次,虽然提出了许多政治、社会和医疗系统方面的解决方案来解决电子健康的使用问题,但大多数已识别的障碍都是单独提出的。这种对个人缺陷的关注导致对这些系统改进的责任分配不当。第三,尽管电子健康旨在简化患者和医疗保健工作者的任务,但这些是最常承担确保其成功的责任的群体。最后,尽管针对用户定制电子健康是最被建议的解决方案,但研究人员通常将群体视为同质实体,从而使定制变得困难。最终,本综述发现,必须将研究重点转移到解决系统层面的系统问题上,以防止进一步加剧现有的健康不平等。