Characterizing the Digital Health Citizen: Mixed-Methods Study Deriving a New Typology
- PMID: 30835238
- PMCID: PMC6423500
- DOI: 10.2196/11279
Characterizing the Digital Health Citizen: Mixed-Methods Study Deriving a New Typology
Abstract
Background: A key challenge for health systems harnessing digital tools and services is that of digital inclusion. Typically, digital inequalities are conceptualized in relation to unequal access or usage. However, these differences do not fully explain differences in health behavior as a result of health-related internet use.
Objective: Our objective was to derive a new typology of health internet users based on their antecedent motivations and enablers, to explain how individuals' different orientations influence their health behavior.
Methods: We used a mixed-methods design using (1) qualitative data from 43 semistructured interviews about individuals' general and health-related internet use, and how this influenced their health perception and their help-seeking decisions, and (2) quantitative data from the Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS), a household survey of 2150 adults in England about their internet use and other characteristics. We used the interview data to identify constructs that described motivations and enablers affecting how internet use shaped respondents' health perception and health service use. We then used these constructs to identify variables in OxIS, which provided a quantitative measure of these constructs. We then undertook a hierarchical cluster analysis of these constructs, using the numerical variables, to derive a proposed typology of health information seekers.
Results: Both the qualitative findings and the subsequent cluster analysis suggested the existence of 6 types of individuals, categorized as learners, pragmatists, skeptics, worriers, delegators, and adigitals. Learners had a strong desire to understand health better. They used the internet to make decisions about whether they needed to see a professional and to learn about their and others' health. Pragmatists primarily used the internet to decide whether seeing a doctor was worthwhile. Skeptics were skeptical of physicians and the medical system and valued the internet for solving health problems that doctors may not be able to deal with. Worriers found it difficult to interpret health information online, described health information seeking online as frightening, and reported a critical attitude toward online health information despite seeking it frequently. Delegators comprised nonusers and users valuing the internet as an information source, but not necessarily wanting or being able to use the internet themselves. Adigitals comprised many nonusers, but also users, who did not see the internet as a useful information tool and presented strong views on its low suitability for health care.
Conclusions: This research supports a shift in the understanding of the digital divide in health, away from only access and usage issues, toward also conceptualizing an outcomes divide, whereby different types of health behavior result from the differing orientations of internet users accessing online health information. This new typology can be used to inform digital inclusion policies in health systems.
Keywords: digital divide; digital inequalities; eHealth; health information seeking; health outcomes; health service use; perceived health.
©John Powell, Ulrike Deetjen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 05.03.2019.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Figures


Similar articles
-
What is the Profile of Individuals Joining the KNEEguru Online Health Community? A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study.J Med Internet Res. 2016 Apr 18;18(4):e84. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5374. J Med Internet Res. 2016. PMID: 27089531 Free PMC article.
-
Profiles of a Health Information-Seeking Population and the Current Digital Divide: Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 2015-2016 California Health Interview Survey.J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 14;21(5):e11931. doi: 10.2196/11931. J Med Internet Res. 2019. PMID: 31094350 Free PMC article.
-
The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study.J Med Internet Res. 2011 Feb 23;13(1):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1600. J Med Internet Res. 2011. PMID: 21345783 Free PMC article.
-
A multimethod study of NHS 111 online.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Jun;11(5):1-104. doi: 10.3310/YTRR9821. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023. PMID: 37464813
-
Current experience and future potential of facilitating access to digital NHS primary care services in England: the Di-Facto mixed-methods study.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Sep;12(32):1-197. doi: 10.3310/JKYT5803. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024. PMID: 39324475 Review.
Cited by
-
The Relationship Between Static Characteristics of Physicians and Patient Consultation Volume in Internet Hospitals: Quantitative Analysis.JMIR Form Res. 2024 Jun 17;8:e56687. doi: 10.2196/56687. JMIR Form Res. 2024. PMID: 38885498 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of digital psychoeducation and peer support on the mental health of family carers supporting individuals with psychosis in England (COPe-support): a randomised clinical trial.Lancet Digit Health. 2022 May;4(5):e320-e329. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00031-0. Epub 2022 Apr 1. Lancet Digit Health. 2022. PMID: 35379593 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Era of Digital Healthcare: Emergence of the Smart Patient.Healthc Inform Res. 2025 Jan;31(1):107-110. doi: 10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.107. Epub 2025 Jan 31. Healthc Inform Res. 2025. PMID: 39973041 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Internet Healthcare Policy Analysis, Evaluation, and Improvement Path: Multidimensional Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jun 30;11(13):1905. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11131905. Healthcare (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37444738 Free PMC article.
-
Digital Divide in Perceived Benefits of Online Health Care and Social Welfare Services: National Cross-Sectional Survey Study.J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 7;22(7):e17616. doi: 10.2196/17616. J Med Internet Res. 2020. PMID: 32673218 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Crawford R, Emmerson C. NHS and social care funding: the outlook to 2021/22. Research report. London, UK: Nuffield Trust and Institute for Fiscal Studies; 2012. [2018-06-12]. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/files/2017-01/nhs-social-care-funding-o... .
-
- van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media Soc. 2013 Jun 07;16(3):507–526. doi: 10.1177/1461444813487959. - DOI
-
- van Deursen AJ, Helsper EJ. The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online? In: Robinson L, Cotten SR, Schulz J, Hale TM, Williams A, editors. Communication and Information Technologies Annual: Digital Distinctions and Inequalities. Volume 10. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2015. pp. 29–52.
-
- Eysenbach G, Powell J, Englesakis M, Rizo C, Stern A. Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ. 2004 May 15;328(7449):1166. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1166. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/15142921 328/7449/1166 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical