Jessica A. Coetzer , Nicole S. Goedhart , Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar , Christine Dedding , Teun Zuiderent-Jerak
{"title":"Health equity in the digital age: Exploring health policy and inclusive digital care","authors":"Jessica A. Coetzer , Nicole S. Goedhart , Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar , Christine Dedding , Teun Zuiderent-Jerak","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2025.101039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The digitalisation of care, whilst beneficial for some, also risks exacerbating health inequities if existing health (and social) disparities are not considered. Literature has indicated the broad, systemic causes of digital health inequities could be addressed through policy. This article aims to explore how health inequities are rendered (in)visible in and by digital care policies.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We inductively analysed sixteen Dutch health policy documents focusing on digital care. Employing a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analysed documents to determine how health equity is addressed in relation to digital care.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Although Dutch health policies do consider health inequities, it is not always shown in policies as a concept related to digital care. Health policies portray digital care as progressive and innovative, being able to shape healthcare in several positive ways. The risks of digital care are attended to less, with focus being placed mostly on privacy and data-security rather than also paying attention to digital health inequities.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Policies either ignore digital health equity entirely or present digital health equity in ways that risk overlooking how digital care may subtly aggravate health inequities. This creates a blind spot in which technological deterministic narratives can be disguised. Current policies could unintentionally perpetuate exclusion by not highlighting the role of digital health inequities as a part of the health equity landscape. Policy needs to allow for digital health inequities to be better recognised, allowing digital care to drive, rather than limit, the possibilities for a more equitable future.</div></div><div><h3>Lay Summary</h3><div>Digital care is increasing in popularity, but risks excluding a significant number of people who usually already experience health inequities. Although Dutch health policy does consider health inequities, it is not shown in policies as a concept related to digital care. As a result, health equity risks being forgotten in the development of digital care. Policies portray digital care as being able to shape healthcare in a number of positive ways but do not address the risks it may pose in widening health inequities. Instead, issues like ensuring privacy receive more attention. By being overly optimistic about technology without being cautious about its other social consequences, achieving aims such as affordable and accessible care could be negatively impacted. Policy needs to allow for digital health inequities to be better recognised, allowing digital care to drive, rather than limit, the possibilities for a more equitable future.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":"14 5","pages":"Article 101039"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221188372500067X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
The digitalisation of care, whilst beneficial for some, also risks exacerbating health inequities if existing health (and social) disparities are not considered. Literature has indicated the broad, systemic causes of digital health inequities could be addressed through policy. This article aims to explore how health inequities are rendered (in)visible in and by digital care policies.
Methods
We inductively analysed sixteen Dutch health policy documents focusing on digital care. Employing a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analysed documents to determine how health equity is addressed in relation to digital care.
Results
Although Dutch health policies do consider health inequities, it is not always shown in policies as a concept related to digital care. Health policies portray digital care as progressive and innovative, being able to shape healthcare in several positive ways. The risks of digital care are attended to less, with focus being placed mostly on privacy and data-security rather than also paying attention to digital health inequities.
Conclusions
Policies either ignore digital health equity entirely or present digital health equity in ways that risk overlooking how digital care may subtly aggravate health inequities. This creates a blind spot in which technological deterministic narratives can be disguised. Current policies could unintentionally perpetuate exclusion by not highlighting the role of digital health inequities as a part of the health equity landscape. Policy needs to allow for digital health inequities to be better recognised, allowing digital care to drive, rather than limit, the possibilities for a more equitable future.
Lay Summary
Digital care is increasing in popularity, but risks excluding a significant number of people who usually already experience health inequities. Although Dutch health policy does consider health inequities, it is not shown in policies as a concept related to digital care. As a result, health equity risks being forgotten in the development of digital care. Policies portray digital care as being able to shape healthcare in a number of positive ways but do not address the risks it may pose in widening health inequities. Instead, issues like ensuring privacy receive more attention. By being overly optimistic about technology without being cautious about its other social consequences, achieving aims such as affordable and accessible care could be negatively impacted. Policy needs to allow for digital health inequities to be better recognised, allowing digital care to drive, rather than limit, the possibilities for a more equitable future.
期刊介绍:
Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments.
HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology.
Topics covered by HPT will include:
- Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems
- Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches
- National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives
- Cross-border eHealth including health tourism
- The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare
- Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies
- Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies
- Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making
- Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in)
- Regulation and health economics