Cited by 13Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth disparities and outcomesHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Digital health interventions and inequalities: the case for a new paradigm

Open access
Banerjee, Amitava·2021·BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract

Ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease (the most common cardiovascular diseases, CVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) represent the 2nd, 3rd and 11th leading causes of disease burden1 in England. Both CVD and DM2 are targeted in high-level prevention policies, but variations in risk factors, diseases3 and outcomes,4 as well as treatment and access to services, persist on the basis of ethnicity, which has long been recognised as one of the ‘causes of the causes’ of health inequalities.5 Consideration of ethnicity in health policy has contributed to improved outcomes in ischaemic heart disease in South Asians in the last two decades in the UK,6 showing the benefits of targeted interventions. The NHS Outcomes Framework includes 11 metrics for health inequalities,7 but although ethnicity is mentioned, it is variably recorded in routine data, limiting the scope for measurement and analysis of healthcare use in black and minority ethnic (BME) individuals. Digital health interventions (DHIs), ‘interventions delivered via digital technologies such as smartphones, website, text messaging’,8 could improve healthcare nationally and internationally, facilitating healthcare’s ‘triple aim’ of better care, better health outcomes and reduced costs.9 Systematic reviews support DHIs for improving outcomes in DM10 and CVD,11 and they are actively promoted in national policies (eg, diabetes prevention programme digital stream, heart age calculator in the cardiovascular disease …

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 · 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111282

Cites

16 of 16 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banerjee, A.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Banerjee, Amitava
Venue
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-11-21
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
77-78
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 2515-446X
  • 2515-4478
OpenAlex
W2989995880
Cited by
13
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2010-09-002, RP-DG-0117-10003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
digital health interventions, health disparities, ethnicity, black and minority ethnic populations, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease prevention, targeted interventions, digital health policy

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