Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 25;21(1):e11481.
doi: 10.2196/11481.

How Women Use Digital Technologies for Health: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study

Affiliations

How Women Use Digital Technologies for Health: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study

Deborah Lupton et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: A range of digital technologies are available to lay people to find, share, and generate health-related information. Few studies have directed attention specifically to how women are using these technologies from the diverse array available to them. Even fewer have focused on Australian women's use of digital health.

Objective: The Australian Women and Digital Health Project aimed to investigate which types of digital technologies women used regularly for health-related purposes and which they found most helpful and useful. Qualitative methods-semistructured interviews and focus groups-were employed to shed light on the situated complexities of the participants' enactments of digital health technologies. The project adopted a feminist new materialism theoretical perspective, focusing on the affordances, relational connections, and affective forces that came together to open up or close off the agential capacities generated with and through these enactments.

Methods: The project comprised two separate studies including a total of 66 women. In study 1, 36 women living in the city of Canberra took part in face-to-face interviews and focus groups, while study 2 involved telephone interviews with 30 women from other areas of Australia.

Results: The affordances of search engines to locate health information and websites and social media platforms for providing information and peer support were highly used and valued. Affective forces such as the desire for trust, motivation, empowerment, reassurance, control, care, and connection emerged in the participants' accounts. Agential capacities generated with and through digital health technologies included the capacity to seek and generate information and create a better sense of knowledge and expertise about bodies, illness, and health care, including the women's own bodies and health, that of their families and friends, and that of their often anonymous online social networks. The participants referred time and again to appreciating the feelings of agency and control that using digital health technologies afforded them. When the technologies failed to work as expected, these agential capacities were not realized. Women responded with feelings of frustration, disappointment, and annoyance, leading them to become disenchanted with the possibilities of the digital technologies they had tried.

Conclusions: The findings demonstrate the nuanced and complex ways in which the participants were engaging with and contributing to online sources of information and using these sources together with face-to-face encounters with doctors and other health care professionals and friends and family members. They highlight the lay forms of expertise that the women had developed in finding, assessing, and creating health knowledges. The study also emphasized the key role that many women play in providing advice and health care for family members not only as digitally engaged patients but also as digitally engaged carers.

Keywords: Australia; apps; digital health; feminist new materialism; online forums; qualitative research; social media; wearable devices; websites; women.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Taylor D, Bury M. Chronic illness, expert patients and care transition. Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Jan;29(1):27–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00516.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00516.x.SHIL516 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Procter R, Stones R. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med. 2013 Sep;93:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.036. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277-9536(13)00330-4 S0277-9536(13)00330-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hinder S, Greenhalgh T. “This does my head in.” Ethnographic study of self-management by people with diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Mar 29;12:83. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-83. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-12-83 1472-6963-12-83 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rogers A, Bury M, Kennedy A. Rationality, rhetoric, and religiosity in health care: the case of England's Expert Patients Programme. Int J Health Serv. 2009;39(4):725–747. doi: 10.2190/HS.39.4.h. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lupton D. The digitally engaged patient: self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc Theory Health. 2013 Jun 19;11(3):256–270. doi: 10.1057/sth.2013.10. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources