ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Technology Access, Digital Literacy, and Enrollment Support Preferences in a Federally Qualified Health Center: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Telehealth Use Experience on Recruitment of Underserved Populations Into a Telehealth-Delivered Mindfulness-Based Trial for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Exploring Informal Caregivers' Perception of the Olera Digital Caregiving Assistance Platform for Dementia Care: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Digital burnout in nursing: development of a valid and reliable scale to assess digital burnout associated with the digitalization process in nursing.BMC nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biomedical research studies are increasingly using digital tools to enroll, recruit, and collect data from participants. However, variability in digital literacy and technological acceptance can be challenging for recruitment from groups traditionally underrepresented in research, including those served by Federally Qualified Health Centers. Objective: This study aimed to (1) measure participant accessibility and comfort with digital platforms and (2) examine the interrelation of technology access, digital literacy, and support preferences during enrollment and data submission. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using enrollment data from Federally Qualified Health Centers participating in the All of Us Research Program. Participants had the option of High-Touch (staff-assisted) or Low-Touch (self-directed) support for enrollment and survey completion. Survey items assessed internet access and technology comfort, while support type was recorded by the research staff based on participants' actual selection. Logistic regression models evaluated relationships between technology access, comfort, and enacted support type, while controlling for age, consent language, and education, as well as race and ethnicity. Results: The analytic sample included 605 participants. The majority reported access to the internet (539/605, 89.1%) and felt comfortable with technology (448/605, 74.1%). In the group requesting High-Touch support (n=346), 14.5% (n=50) reported no internet access, and 31.5% (n=109) felt uncomfortable with technology. In the group requesting Low-Touch support (n=259), 6.2% (n=16) had no access to the internet, and 3.9% (n=10) reported feeling uncomfortable (P<.001). In the adjusted models, much greater comfort with technology was significantly correlated with reduced odds of requesting High-Touch support (comfortable: adjusted odds ratio 0.118, 95% CI 0.055-0.255 and neutral: adjusted odds ratio 0.212, 95% CI 0.077-0.587), but internet access was not significantly correlated. Conclusions: The strongest predictor for support preference for digital enrollment among the participants was their comfort with technology rather than access alone. These findings illustrate the significance of participant-centric design methods coupling adaptive support paths, mixed enrollment strategies, and individualized onboarding methods aligned with digital confidence to promote equitable engagement in precision health research.
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.