Using routinely available electronic health record data elements to develop and validate a digital divide risk score.

Faro JM, Obermiller E, Obermiller C, Trinkley KE, Wright G, Sadasivam RS, Foley KL, Cutrona SL, Houston TK. Using routinely available electronic health record data elements to develop and validate a digital divide risk score. JAMIA open. 2025 Feb 1; 8(1):ooaf004, DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf004.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Digital health (patient portals, remote monitoring devices, video visits) is a routine part of health care, though the digital divide may affect access. OBJECTIVES: To test and validate an electronic health record (EHR) screening tool to identify patients at risk of the digital divide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective EHR data extraction and cross-sectional survey of participants within 1 health care system. We identified 4 potential digital divide markers from the EHR: (1) mobile phone number, (2) email address, (3) active patient portal, and (4) > 2 patient portal logins in the last year. We mailed surveys to patients at higher risk (missing all 4 markers), intermediate risk (missing 1-3 markers), or lower risk (missing no markers). Combining EHR and survey data, we summarized the markers into risk scores and evaluated its association with patients'' report of lack of Internet access. Then, we assessed the association of EHR markers and eHealth Literacy Scale survey outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients (39.4%) completed the survey (53% > 65 years, 51% female, 50% minority race, 55% rural/small town residents, 46% private insurance, 45% Medicare). Individually, the 4 EHR markers had high sensitivity (range 81%-95%) and specificity (range 65%-79%) compared with survey responses. The EHR marker-based score (high risk, intermediate risk, low risk) predicted absence of Internet access (receiver operator characteristics < i > c < /i > -statistic = 0.77). Mean digital health literacy scores significantly decreased as her marker digital divide risk increased ( < i > P < /i >    < .001). DISCUSSION: Each of the four EHR markers (Cell phone, email address, patient portal active, and patient portal actively used) compared with self-report yielded high levels of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy. CONCLUSION: Using these markers, health care systems could target interventions and implementation strategies to support equitable patient access to digital health.