Abstract
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.
Funder
NIHR School for Primary Care Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference53 articles.
1. Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Mosconi P, Rasmussen NK, Bullinger M, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):283–98.
2. WHO. The global burden of disease: 2004 update. In: WHO library cataloguing-in-publication data. Geneva: World health Organisation; 2004.
3. Department of Health. Long-term conditions compendium of information. 3rd ed; 2012.
4. Marmot M. Achieving health equity: from root causes to fair outcomes. Lancet. 2007;370(9593):1153–63.
5. Goodwin N, Curry N, Naylor C, Ross S, Duldig W. Managing people with long-term conditions. London: Kings fund; 2010.