Cited by 108Public Health and Social InequalitiesHealth disparities and outcomesHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Vicious cycles: digital technologies and determinants of health in Australia

Open access
Baum, F., Newman, L., Biedrzycki, K.·2014·Health Promotion International

Abstract

Digital technologies are increasingly important as ways to gain access to most of the important social determinants of health including employment, housing, education and social networks. However, little is known about the impact of the new technologies on opportunities for health and well-being. This paper reports on a focus group study of the impact of these technologies on people from low socio-economic backgrounds. We use Bourdieu's theories of social inequities and the ways in which social, cultural and economic capitals interact to reinforce and reproduce inequities to examine the ways in which digital technologies are contributing to these processes. Six focus group discussions with 55 people were held to examine their access to and views about using digital technologies. These data are analysed in light of Bourdieu's theory to determine how people's existing capitals shape their access to and use of digital technologies and what the implications of exclusion from the technologies are likely to be for the social determinants of health. The paper concludes that some people are being caught in a vicious cycle whereby lack of digital access or the inability to make beneficial use reinforces and amplifies existing disadvantage including low levels of reading and writing literacy. The paper concludes with a consideration of actions health promoters could take to interrupt this cycle and so contribute to reducing health inequities.

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 · 10.1093/heapro/das062

Cites

41 of 41 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

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?

  • Some studies (5/41, 12%) suggested that relevant technical tools and volunteers can be provided to develop patients' confidence and skills in digital technology access and improve their eHealth literacy.

    “Some studies (5/41, 12%) suggested that relevant technical tools and volunteers can be provided [1,38] to develop patients’ confidence and skills in digital technology access and improve their eHealth literacy [18,38,50,58].”
  • The barriers to technological access provide insight as to possible explanations for the exclusion of older adults from the research, design, and development process of digital technologies.

    “The barriers to technological access outlined above provide insight as to possible explanations for the exclusion of older adults from the research, design, and development process of digital technologies (Baum et al., 2014; Kanstrup & Bygholm, 2019; Lagacé et al., 2015).”

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: 3

  1. Kutner, M. (2006) Health Literacy of America's Adults. Plenary Address, National Adult Education Practitioner- Researcher Symposium, 30 November-2 December, Sacramento, CA.
  2. UK Online Centres. (2011). UK Online Centres. Annual Review 2009-2011. UK online centres, Sheffield, UK. http://www.ukonlinecentres.com/about-us/our-publications. html (last accessed 15 December 2011).
  3. Zarcadoolas, C. and Pleasant, A. (2009) Health literacy in the digital world. In Parker, J and Thorson, E. (eds), Health Communication in the New Media Landscape, Springer, New York, pp. 303 -322.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baum, F., Newman, L., & Biedrzycki, K.
Affiliations
Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Baum, F.
Venue
Health Promotion International
Published
2012-11-09
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
349-360
ISSN
  • 0957-4824 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2245
OpenAlex
W2137553943
Cited by
108
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Promotion International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
digital technologies, social determinants of health, health disparities, low socioeconomic status, digital divide, Pierre Bourdieu, cultural capital, social capital, economic capital, literacy, digital exclusion, health promotion, Australia
MeSH terms
Australia, Computers, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Information Systems, Male, Socioeconomic Factors, Focus Groups, Racial Groups, Health Literacy, Social Determinants of Health

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