Cited by 326Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIHealth disparities and outcomes

Health data poverty: an assailable barrier to equitable digital health care

Open access
Ibrahim, Hussein, Liu, Xiaoxuan, Zariffa, Nevine, Morris, Andrew D, Denniston, Alastair K·2021·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

Data-driven digital health technologies have the power to transform health care. If these tools could be sustainably delivered at scale, they might have the potential to provide everyone, everywhere, with equitable access to expert-level care, narrowing the global health and wellbeing gap. Conversely, it is highly possible that these transformative technologies could exacerbate existing health-care inequalities instead. In this Viewpoint, we describe the problem of health data poverty: the inability for individuals, groups, or populations to benefit from a discovery or innovation due to a scarcity of data that are adequately representative. We assert that health data poverty is a threat to global health that could prevent the benefits of data-driven digital health technologies from being more widely realised and might even lead to them causing harm. We argue that the time to act is now to avoid creating a digital health divide that exacerbates existing health-care inequalities and to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital era.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30317-4

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chen IY, Pierson E, Rose S, Joshi S, Ferryman K, Ghassemi M. Ethical machine learning in health care. ArXiv 2020; published online Oct 8. https://arXiv:2009.10576 (preprint).
  2. Mitchell M, Wu S, Zaldivar A, et al. Model cards for model reporting. ArXiv 2019; published online Jan 14. https://arXiv:1810.03993v2 (preprint).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ibrahim, H., Liu, X., Zariffa, N., Morris, A. D., & Denniston, A. K.
Affiliations
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Health Data Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Denniston, Alastair K
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
e260-e265
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3135721250
Cited by
326
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 13
FWCI
14.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_13040, MR/M501633/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
data scarcity, health care inequality, digital divide, global health inequities
MeSH terms
Digital Technology, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Biomedical Technology, Healthcare Disparities, Datasets as Topic

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