Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis estimates eHealth service use in adults with diabetes, highlighting disparities in engagement based on demographics and health literacy.
Introduction and Objective: Digital health tools play an increasingly important role in diabetes management, yet disparities in eHealth use remain a national concern. The post-pandemic period offers an opportunity to reassess digital engagement among adults with diabetes using National Health Information Survey(NHIS) data from 2022 to 2024.This study aims to estimate the prevalence of eHealth service use among U.S. adults with diabetes and identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with digital health engagement. Methods: We analyzed pooled data from 9,939 adults aged 20 years or more with self-reported diabetes, using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2022-2024. Outcomes included four eHealth services: email communication with providers, seeking health information online, checking test results online, and completing medical appointments online. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios, accounting for the complex survey design. Results: Older adults showed significantly lower eHealth engagement, including reduced email communication (PR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80) and online information seeking (PR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.82). Women demonstrated higher use across all modalities (PR 1.09-1.18). Education showed the strongest gradient, with those having some college or higher more likely to check test results (PR 2.52, 95% CI 2.09-3.03). Hispanic and Asian adults reported greater online appointment use (PR 1.14 and 1.20), while uninsured adults showed markedly lower engagement (PR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). Conclusion: Despite expanded digital health availability, pronounced sociodemographic disparities persist. Targeted strategies to improve access, literacy, and digital support are essential to promote equitable diabetes care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ofori et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: