Title |
Why Aren’t Our Digital Solutions Working for Everyone?
|
---|---|
Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas2-1711 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Brian Van Winkle, Neil Carpenter, Mauro Moscucci |
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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 7 | 35% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
Finland | 1 | 5% |
Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 14 | 70% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 20% |
Scientists | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
Other | 5 | 7% |
Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
Other | 13 | 19% |
Unknown | 27 | 40% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 9% |
Engineering | 5 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
Other | 12 | 18% |
Unknown | 29 | 43% |