Cited by 214Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records Systems

Use of e-Health Services between 1999 and 2002: A Growing Digital Divide

Open access
Hsu, J.·2004·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patterns of e-Health use over a four-year period and the characteristics of users. DESIGN: Longitudinal, population-based study (1999-2002) of members of a prepaid integrated delivery system. Available e-Health services included ordering prescription drug refills, scheduling appointments, and asking medical questions. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of known access to e-Health services, and of e-Health use each quarter. RESULTS: The number of members with known e-Health access increased from 51,336 (1.6%) in 1999 to 324,522 (9.3%), in 2002. The percentage of households in which at least one person in the household had access increased from 2.7% to 14.1%. Among the subjects with known access, the percentage of subjects that used e-Health at least once increased from 25.7% in 1999 to 36.2% in 2002. In the multivariate analysis, subjects who had a low expected clinical need, were nonwhite, or lived in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods were less likely to have used e-Health services in 2002. Disparities by race/ethnicity and SES persisted after controlling for access to e-Health and widened over time. CONCLUSION: Access to and use of e-Health services are growing rapidly. Use of these services appears to be greatest among persons with more medical need. The majority of subjects, however, do not use any e-Health services. More research is needed to determine potential reasons for disparities in e-Health use by race/ethnicity and SES as well as the implications of these disparities on clinical outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1197/jamia.m1672

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsu, J.
Affiliations
United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Hsu, J.
ORCID
Hsu, J.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2004-11-23
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
164-171
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2161766695
Cited by
214
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
19.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
e-health services, digital divide, health disparities, racial and ethnic disparities, socioeconomic status, online appointment booking, health information technology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, California, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Longitudinal Studies, Middle Aged, Socioeconomic Factors, Prepaid Health Plans, Telemedicine, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Internet, Racial Groups

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