Cited by 34Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

The Use of Digital Health Tools for Health Promotion Among Women With and Without Chronic Diseases: Insights From the 2017-2020 Health Information National Trends Survey

Open access
Ajayi, Kobi V, Wachira, Elizabeth, Onyeaka, Henry K, Montour, Tyra, Olowolaju, Samson, Garney, Whitney·2022·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Abstract

Background: In the United States, almost 90% of women are at risk of at least one chronic condition. However, the awareness, management, and monitoring of these conditions are low and present a substantial public health problem. Digital health tools can be leveraged to reduce the alarmingly high rates of chronic condition–related mortality and morbidity in women. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the 4-year trend of digital health use for health promotion among women with chronic conditions in the United States. Methods: Data for this study were obtained from the 2017 to 2020 iterations of the Health Information Trends Survey 5. Separate weighted logistic regression models were conducted to test the unadjusted and adjusted association of the study variables and each digital health use. The 95% CI, adjusted odds ratio (aOR), and P value (.05) were reported. Analysis was conducted using Stata 17 software. Results: In total, 8573 women were included in this study. The weighted prevalence of the use of a smartphone or tablet for various activities were as follows: track health goals, 50.3% (95% CI 48.4%-52.2%; 3279/7122); make a health decision, 43.6% (95% CI 41.9%-45.3%; 2998/7101); and discuss with a provider, 40% (95% CI 38.2%-41.8%; 2834/7099). In the preceding 12 months, 33% (95% CI 30.9%-35.2%; 1395/4826) of women used an electronic wearable device, 18.7% (95% CI 17.3%-20.2%; 1532/7653) shared health information, and 35.2% (95% CI 33.2%-37.3%; 2262/6349) sent or received an SMS text message with a health professional. Between 2017 and 2020, the weighted prevalence of having 0, 1, and multiple chronic conditions were 37.4% (2718/8564), 33.4% (2776/8564), and 29.3% (3070/8564), respectively. However, slightly above half (52.2%, 95% CI 0.50%-0.53%; 4756/8564) of US women reported having at least one chronic disease. Women with multiple chronic conditions had higher odds of using their tablet or smartphone to achieve a health-related goal (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77; P=.001) and discuss with their provider (aOR 1.55 95% CI 1.20-2.00; P=.001) than those without any chronic conditions. Correspondingly, in the past 12 months, the odds of using an electronic wearable device (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00-1.96; P=.04), sharing health information (aOR 1.91, 95% CI 1.46-2.51; P<.001), and communicating via SMS text messaging with a provider (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02-1.68; P=.03) were significantly higher among women with chronic conditions than those without a chronic condition. Conclusions: This study suggests that women with chronic conditions accept and integrate digital health tools to manage their care. However, certain subpopulations experience a digital disconnect that may exacerbate existing health inequities. Implications for research and opportunities to leverage and integrate digital health tools to prevent, monitor, manage, and treat chronic conditions in women are discussed.

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 · 10.2196/39520

Cites

27 of 27 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
Ajayi, K. V., Wachira, E., Onyeaka, H. K., Montour, T., Olowolaju, S., & Garney, W.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • East Texas A&M University (US)
  • McLean Hospital (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
Corresponding author
Ajayi, Kobi V
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2022-08-19
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
e39520
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4292378943
Cited by
34
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
digital health tools, health promotion, women with chronic illness, chronic disease, wearable devices, health data sharing, health decision-making, social determinants of health, health literacy, health information seeking
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Multiple Chronic Conditions, Chronic Disease, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States

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