↓ Skip to main content

Why Aren't Our Digital Solutions Working for Everyone?

Overview of attention for article published in AMA Journal of Ethics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Why Aren't Our Digital Solutions Working for Everyone?
Published in
AMA Journal of Ethics, November 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas2-1711
Pubmed ID
Abstract

The article explores a digital injustice that is occurring across the country: that digital solutions intended to increase health care access and quality often neglect those that need them most. It further shows that when it comes to digital innovation, health care professionals and technology companies rarely have any incentives to focus on underserved populations. Nevertheless, we argue that the technologies that are leaving these communities behind are the same ones that can best support them. The key is in leveraging these technologies with: (a) design features that accommodate various levels of technological proficiency (e-literacy), (b) tech-enabled community health workers and navigators who can function as liaisons between patients and clinicians, and (c) analytics and customer relationship management tools that enable health care professionals and support networks to provide the right interventions to the right patients. Finally, we argue that community health care workers will need to be incentivized to play a larger role in building and adopting innovations targeting the underserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Engineering 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 8 42%