ArticleBMC public health2026
Digital divide in diabetes care: qualitative insights from the DIG-EQUITY study, India.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health technologies have the potential to improve health outcomes in underserved settings. However, in low and middle-income countries with weak public health systems, unequal access to digital tools can worsen existing healthcare disparities. The DIG-EQUITY study explored the facilitators and barriers to equitable use of mobile and telehealth solutions for diabetes care in India, incorporating perspectives from people with diabetes, their family members (caregivers), healthcare providers, policymakers, and community organisations.
methodsA qualitative design was employed across urban (Chennai) and rural (Chunampet) settings in Tamil Nadu, following the 32-item COREQ checklist. A total of 54 participants (including type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)) were included in four focus group discussions (FGDs) and 12 key informant interviews (KIIs). Participants were purposively sampled to ensure diversity in demographics and healthcare exposure. The analysis was guided by the Social Ecological Model (SEM), which informed the structuring and interpretation of themes across domains.
resultsThe different domains of the SEM influenced the utilisation of digital health. Individual factors such as age, digital literacy, and diabetes type shaped preferences. Interpersonal support from caregivers enabled access, particularly for older adults and children. Organisational and community influences included urban–rural infrastructure gaps, socioeconomic constraints, and shared device ownership. Policy-level concerns regarding data privacy, security, and app reliability affected trust and continued engagement.
conclusionSocioeconomic status, sex, and geographic location influenced access and adoption of digital solutions. Bridging the divide through targeted digital literacy initiatives and inclusive strategies is essential to ensure equitable and effective use of digital health solutions for diabetes care in India.
trial registrationThe trial was registered with Central Trials Registry of India ( CTRI/2022/04/041941 ).
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.