CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 336Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityICT in Developing CommunitiesDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Access to Health Information and Support: A Public Highway or a Private Road?

Eng, Thomas R., Maxfield, Andrew, Patrick, Kevin, Deering, Mary Jo, Ratzan, Scott C., Gustafson, David H.·1998·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.280.15.1371
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Information and communication technologies may help reduce health disparities through their potential for promoting health, preventing disease, and supporting clinical care for all. Unfortunately, those who have preventable health problems and lack health insurance coverage are the least likely to have access to such technologies. Barriers to access include cost, geographic location, illiteracy, disability, and factors related to the capacity of people to use these technologies appropriately and effectively. A goal of universal access to health information and support is proposed to augment existing initiatives to improve the health of individuals and the public. Both public- and private-sector stakeholders, particularly government agencies and private corporations, will need to collaboratively reduce the gap between the health information "haves" and "have-nots." This will include supporting health information technology access in homes and public places, developing applications for the growing diversity of users, funding research on access-related issues, ensuring the quality of health information and support, enhancing literacy in health and technology, training health information intermediaries, and integrating the concept of universal access to health information and support into health planning processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.15.1371

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 336

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Eng, T. R., Maxfield, A., Patrick, K., Deering, M. J., Ratzan, S. C., & Gustafson, D. H.
Affiliations
United States Department of Health and Human Services (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1998-10-21
Volume
280
Issue
15
Pages
1371
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.280.15.1371
OpenAlex
W2038610585
Cited by
335
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 6
FWCI
33.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
health information technology, health information access, health disparities, digital divide, health literacy, health insurance coverage, technology access barriers, health planning, universal access, disease prevention
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Services Needs and Demand, Medical Informatics, Public Health, Private Sector, Public Sector, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review