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 May 29;21(5):e13615.
doi: 10.2196/13615.

Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Between Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Study

Anne Helen Hansen  1   2 , Meghan Bradway  3   4 , Jan Broz  5 , Tor Claudi  6 , Øystein Henriksen  7 , Silje C Wangberg  8 , Eirik Årsand  3   9
Affiliations

Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Between Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Study

Anne Helen Hansen et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of diabetes and the use of electronic health (eHealth) are increasing. People with diabetes need frequent monitoring and follow-up of health parameters, and eHealth services can be highly valuable. However, little is known about the use of eHealth in different socioeconomic groups among people with diabetes.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the use of 4 different eHealth platforms (apps, search engines, video services, and social media sites) and the association with socioeconomic status (SES) among people diagnosed with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D and T2D, respectively).

Methods: We used email survey data from 1250 members of the Norwegian Diabetes Association (aged 18-89 years), collected in 2018. Eligible for analyses were the 1063 respondents having T1D (n=523) and T2D (n=545). 5 respondents reported having both diabetes types and thus entered into both groups. Using descriptive statistics, we estimated the use of the different types of eHealth. By logistic regressions, we studied the associations between the use of these types of eHealth and SES (education and household income), adjusted for gender, age, and self-rated health.

Results: We found that 87.0% (447/514) of people with T1D and 77.7% (421/542) of people with T2D had used 1 or more forms of eHealth sometimes or often during the previous year. The proportion of people using search engines was the largest in both diagnostic groups, followed by apps, social media, and video services. We found a strong association between a high level of education and the use of search engines, whereas there were no educational differences for the use of apps, social media, or video services. In both diagnostic groups, high income was associated with the use of apps. In people with T1D, lower income was associated with the use of video services.

Conclusions: This paper indicates a digital divide among people with diabetes in Norway, with consequences that may contribute to sustaining and shaping inequalities in health outcomes. The strong relationship between higher education and the use of search engines, along with the finding that the use of apps, social media, and video services was not associated with education, indicates that adequate communication strategies for audiences with varying education levels should be a focus in future efforts to reduce inequalities in health outcomes.

Keywords: Norway; cross-sectional study; diabetes mellitus, type 1; diabetes mellitus, type 2; eHealth; education; health care utilization; income; inequalities; internet.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study population.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ogurtsova K, da RFJD, Huang Y, Linnenkamp U, Guariguata L, Cho NH, Cavan D, Shaw JE, Makaroff LE. IDF Diabetes Atlas: global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017 Jun;128:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.03.024.S0168-8227(17)30375-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health. [2018-06-16]. [Public Health in Norway 2018] https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/2018/helsetils... .
    1. Jenssen TG, Tonstad S, Claudi T, Midthjell K, Cooper J. The gap between guidelines and practice in the treatment of type 2 diabetes A nationwide survey in Norway. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008 May;80(2):314–20. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2007.12.025.S0168-8227(08)00007-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mouland G. [Diabetes in general practice--were treatment goals reached?] Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2014 Jan 28;134(2):168–72. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.13.0375. http://tidsskriftet.no/article/3127607 3127607 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cooper JG, Claudi T, Thordarson HB, Løvaas KF, Carlsen S, Sandberg S, Thue G. Treatment of type 1 diabetes in the specialist health service--data from the Norwegian Diabetes Register for Adults. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2013 Nov 12;133(21):2257–62. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.13.0153. http://tidsskriftet.no/article/3095352 3095352 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types