ArticleJAMIA open2025
Using routinely available electronic health record data elements to develop and validate a digital divide risk score.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Prescriptions and Pharmacy Services in Internet-Based Psychiatric Hospital During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Digital health (patient portals, remote monitoring devices, video visits) is a routine part of health care, though the digital divide may affect access. Objectives: To test and validate an electronic health record (EHR) screening tool to identify patients at risk of the digital divide. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective EHR data extraction and cross-sectional survey of participants within 1 health care system. We identified 4 potential digital divide markers from the EHR: (1) mobile phone number, (2) email address, (3) active patient portal, and (4) >2 patient portal logins in the last year. We mailed surveys to patients at higher risk (missing all 4 markers), intermediate risk (missing 1-3 markers), or lower risk (missing no markers). Combining EHR and survey data, we summarized the markers into risk scores and evaluated its association with patients' report of lack of Internet access. Then, we assessed the association of EHR markers and eHealth Literacy Scale survey outcomes. Results: A total of 249 patients (39.4%) completed the survey (53%>65 years, 51% female, 50% minority race, 55% rural/small town residents, 46% private insurance, 45% Medicare). Individually, the 4 EHR markers had high sensitivity (range 81%-95%) and specificity (range 65%-79%) compared with survey responses. The EHR marker-based score (high risk, intermediate risk, low risk) predicted absence of Internet access (receiver operator characteristics Discussion: Each of the four EHR markers (Cell phone, email address, patient portal active, and patient portal actively used) compared with self-report yielded high levels of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy. Conclusion: Using these markers, health care systems could target interventions and implementation strategies to support equitable patient access to digital health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.