Epidemiology & Public Health

Open Access
ISSN: 3070-2410
Date of Submission: 02 January 2026
Volume 1, Issue 1
Date of Acceptance: 27 January 2026
Research Article Date of Publication: 29 January 2026

Digital Health Access Inequality and Its Epidemiological Impact on

Preventive Healthcare Utilization: A Community-Based Survey from India

K. Venkata Gopaiah1*, Ch. Gopala Krishna2 and Ramya Teja Medarametla3

1,2Associate Professor, A.M. Reddy Memorial College of Pharmacy, India
3Associate Professor, Narasaraopeta Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, India

*Corresponding Author: K. Venkata Gopaiah, Associate Professor, A.M. Reddy Memorial

College of Pharmacy, India.

Citation: Gopaiah, K, V., Krishna, C, G., Medarametla, R, T. (2026). Digital Health Access
Inequality and Its Epidemiological Impact on Preventive Healthcare Utilization: A Community-
Based Survey from India. Epidemiol Public Health OA, 1(1), 01-13.

Abstract
Background:
Rapid expansion of digital health technologies has transformed healthcare delivery worldwide;
however, unequal access to digital resources remains a major public health concern in low-
and middle-income countries. In India, disparities in digital access may influence the utilization
of preventive healthcare services, thereby contributing to avoidable epidemiological
inequalities. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of digital health access inequality and
to examine its association with preventive healthcare utilization in a community-based
population.

Materials and Methods:

A community-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults aged ≥18 years
residing in urban and semi-urban communities in India. Data were collected using a structured
questionnaire assessing socio-demographic characteristics, digital health access indicators
(smartphone ownership, internet availability, digital literacy, and use of digital health services),
and utilization of preventive healthcare services, including routine health check-ups and
screening for common non-communicable diseases. Descriptive statistics were used to
estimate prevalence rates, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to
identify associations between digital health access and preventive healthcare utilization.

Results:
Among the surveyed participants, substantial inequalities were observed in access to digital
health resources. Individuals with adequate digital access demonstrated significantly higher
utilization of preventive healthcare services compared to those with limited or no digital access.
After adjusting for age, gender, education, and socioeconomic status, digital health access
remained a significant predictor of preventive healthcare utilization, with digitally connected
participants showing higher odds of undergoing regular health check-ups and disease
screening.

Conclusion:
Findings from this study indicate that digital health access inequality constitutes an important
Epidemiol Public Health OA 1
epidemiological determinant of preventive healthcare utilization in community settings.
Addressing digital disparities through inclusive public health strategies may enhance preventive
care uptake and contribute to improved population health outcomes in India.

Keywords: Community, Healthcare, Urban, Sem-Urban, Digital

Introduction
The increasing integration of digital technologies into healthcare systems has emerged as one
of the most significant transformations in public health practice in the twenty-first century.
Digital health—an umbrella term encompassing telemedicine, mobile health (mHealth)
applications, electronic health records, wearable technologies, and online health information
platforms—has been widely promoted as a solution to long-standing challenges related to
healthcare access, efficiency, and equity. From an epidemiological perspective, digital health
technologies have the potential to influence population health outcomes by facilitating early
disease detection, improving continuity of care, and enhancing the uptake of preventive
healthcare services. However, the benefits of digital health are not uniformly distributed across
populations, giving rise to new forms of health inequality rooted in disparities in digital access
and literacy[1].

Preventive healthcare utilization represents a cornerstone of public health strategy aimed at

reducing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditure associated with both communicable
and non-communicable diseases. Preventive services such as routine health check-ups, blood
pressure monitoring, diabetes screening, cancer screening, and lifestyle counseling play a
critical role in identifying health risks at an early stage and preventing disease progression.
Epidemiological evidence consistently demonstrates that populations with higher uptake of
preventive healthcare services experience lower disease burden and improved health
outcomes. Despite this, preventive healthcare utilization remains suboptimal in many low- and
middle-income countries, including India, where structural, socioeconomic, and behavioral
barriers continue to limit access to preventive care[2].

India is currently undergoing a complex epidemiological transition characterized by a declining

burden of communicable diseases alongside a rapidly rising prevalence of non-communicable
diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.
This transition places considerable strain on the healthcare system and underscores the
importance of strengthening preventive healthcare services at the community level. Early
detection and prevention are particularly important in the Indian context, where delayed
diagnosis and fragmented healthcare utilization often result in advanced disease presentation
and poorer outcomes. In this setting, digital health technologies have been positioned as a
key enabler of preventive care, with the potential to bridge gaps in healthcare access and
improve health system responsiveness[3].

Over the past decade, India has witnessed rapid growth in digital infrastructure, including
widespread mobile phone penetration, expanding internet connectivity, and the proliferation
of digital health platforms supported by both public and private sectors. Government-led
initiatives aimed at digital transformation of healthcare, including the promotion of
teleconsultation services, electronic health records, and digital health identification systems,
reflect a growing recognition of the role of digital health in achieving universal health coverage.
At the same time, the private sector has played a significant role in developing mobile health
applications, online consultation platforms, and digital diagnostic services aimed at improving
healthcare access and convenience[4].
Epidemiol Public Health OA 2
Despite these advancements, access to digital health resources remains highly uneven across
different segments of the population. The concept of digital health access inequality extends
beyond mere ownership of digital devices to include reliable internet connectivity, digital
literacy, affordability of data services, and the capacity to effectively engage with digital health
tools. In India, these dimensions of inequality are often shaped by age, education, income,
gender, and place of residence. Rural and semi-urban populations, older adults, individuals
with lower educational attainment, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are more
likely to experience limited digital access, potentially excluding them from the benefits of digital
health innovations[5].

From a public health perspective, digital health access inequality represents an emerging social
determinant of health with important epidemiological implications. Limited access to digital
health resources may restrict individuals’ ability to obtain health information, schedule
appointments, access teleconsultations, and receive reminders for preventive screenings.
Conversely, individuals with greater digital access may be better positioned to engage in
preventive health behaviors, monitor their health status, and seek timely medical care. These
disparities have the potential to reinforce existing health inequalities and contribute to
differential patterns of preventive healthcare utilization at the population level.

The relationship between digital health access and preventive healthcare utilization is
particularly relevant in community settings, where healthcare-seeking behavior is influenced
by a complex interplay of individual, social, and systemic factors. Community-based
epidemiological studies provide valuable insights into real-world patterns of healthcare
utilization and help identify barriers and facilitators of preventive care uptake. While hospital-
based studies offer important clinical data, they often fail to capture the experiences of
individuals who do not routinely engage with formal healthcare systems. Community-based
surveys are therefore essential for understanding how digital health access influences
preventive healthcare behavior across diverse population groups[6].

Existing literature on digital health has largely focused on technological adoption, user
satisfaction, and clinical outcomes in specific disease contexts. Although some studies have
examined the role of digital interventions in improving preventive care uptake, many have
been conducted in high-income countries with relatively uniform digital infrastructure.
Evidence from low- and middle-income countries remains limited, and findings from high-
income settings may not be directly transferable due to differences in health system
organization, socioeconomic conditions, and digital literacy levels. In the Indian context,
research examining the epidemiological impact of digital health access inequality on preventive
healthcare utilization is particularly sparse.

Moreover, much of the available research treats digital health access as a binary variable—
present or absent—without adequately capturing the multidimensional nature of digital
inequality. Factors such as smartphone ownership, internet reliability, digital literacy, and
actual use of digital health services may independently and collectively influence healthcare
utilization patterns. An epidemiological approach that integrates these dimensions can provide
a more nuanced understanding of how digital health access shapes preventive care behavior
in community populations[7].

Preventive healthcare utilization is influenced not only by access to services but also by
awareness, perceived need, cultural beliefs, and trust in the healthcare system. Digital
Epidemiol Public Health OA 3
platforms can play an important role in shaping these factors by disseminating health
information, promoting awareness of screening programs, and facilitating communication
between individuals and healthcare providers. However, individuals who lack access to digital
resources may remain disconnected from these information channels, limiting their exposure
to preventive health messaging and opportunities for early intervention.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital health services
worldwide, highlighting both the potential and limitations of digital healthcare delivery. During
periods of restricted mobility, digital platforms became a primary means of accessing
healthcare services, including preventive consultations and follow-up care. While this shift
demonstrated the feasibility of digital health solutions, it also exposed deep-seated inequalities
in digital access. Populations with limited digital resources were disproportionately affected,
underscoring the importance of addressing digital health access inequality as a public health
priority[8].

Understanding the epidemiological relationship between digital health access inequality and
preventive healthcare utilization has important implications for health policy and planning. If
digital access is found to be a significant determinant of preventive care uptake, interventions
aimed at improving digital literacy and infrastructure may play a crucial role in enhancing
population health outcomes. Such interventions could complement traditional public health
strategies by expanding the reach of preventive services and reducing barriers to care.

In the Indian healthcare landscape, where resource constraints and population diversity
present ongoing challenges, evidence-based strategies are needed to ensure that digital health
innovations contribute to health equity rather than exacerbating existing disparities.
Community-based epidemiological research can inform the design of inclusive digital health
policies that prioritize vulnerable populations and support equitable access to preventive
healthcare services[9].

In light of these considerations, the present study was designed to assess digital health access
inequality and examine its association with preventive healthcare utilization in a community-
based population in India. By adopting a cross-sectional epidemiological approach, this study
seeks to quantify disparities in digital health access, evaluate patterns of preventive healthcare
utilization, and identify key associations between digital access indicators and preventive care
behaviors. The findings are expected to contribute to the growing body of public health
literature on digital health and provide evidence to support the development of targeted
interventions aimed at improving preventive healthcare utilization through inclusive digital
health strategies.

Methodology
Study Design
A community-based cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess digital health access
inequality and its epidemiological association with preventive healthcare utilization among
adults in India. A cross-sectional design was selected as it is appropriate for estimating
prevalence and examining associations between exposure variables (digital health access
indicators) and outcome variables (preventive healthcare utilization) at a single point in time.
This design is widely used in epidemiological and public health research to explore population-
level patterns and determinants of health-related behaviors[10].

Epidemiol Public Health OA 4

Study Setting
The study was carried out in selected urban and semi-urban communities in India. These
settings were chosen to capture variations in digital infrastructure, socioeconomic conditions,
and healthcare access that commonly exist within rapidly urbanizing regions. Urban and semi-
urban areas provide an appropriate context for examining digital health inequality, as they
include populations with both high and limited access to digital resources, thereby allowing
meaningful comparison across different levels of digital access[11].

Study Population
The study population consisted of adult community residents aged 18 years and above who
had been residing in the selected communities for a minimum period of six months. This
residency criterion was applied to ensure that participants had adequate exposure to local
healthcare services and digital infrastructure. Individuals who were severely ill at the time of
data collection or unable to provide informed consent were excluded from the study[12].

Sample Size and Sampling Technique

A minimum sample size of 400 participants was considered adequate to estimate prevalence
and examine associations with sufficient statistical power, assuming a 50% prevalence of
preventive healthcare utilization, a 95% confidence level, and a 5% margin of error. To
account for potential non-response or incomplete questionnaires, the target sample size was
increased.

A non-probability convenience sampling technique was employed, with efforts made to ensure
representation across age groups, gender, educational status, and socioeconomic strata. Data
were collected from households and community gathering points to minimize selection bias
and enhance community-level representation[13].

Study Procedure
Data collection was conducted using a structured, interviewer-administered questionnaire.
Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was pilot tested on a small subset of participants to
assess clarity, relevance, and feasibility. Necessary modifications were made based on
feedback obtained during the pilot phase[14].

Trained field investigators approached eligible participants, explained the purpose of the study,
and obtained informed consent prior to administering the questionnaire. Interviews were
conducted in a language understood by the participants to ensure accurate responses. Privacy
and confidentiality were maintained throughout the data collection process[16].

Measures
Independent Variables[17]
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Sociodemographic variables included age, gender, educational attainment, employment status,
household income, and place of residence (urban or semi-urban). These variables were
included based on their established role as determinants of healthcare utilization and digital
access in public health literature.
Digital Health Access Indicators
Digital health access was assessed using multiple indicators to capture its multidimensional
nature:
• Smartphone ownership (yes/no)
• Internet availability (regular, intermittent, none)
Epidemiol Public Health OA 5
 • Digital literacy, assessed by self-reported ability to use mobile applications and access
online health information
• Use of digital health services, including teleconsultation, online appointment
booking, or use of health-related mobile applications
Participants were categorized into groups with adequate or limited digital health access based
on a composite assessment of these indicators.
Dependent Variables
Preventive Healthcare Utilization
Preventive healthcare utilization was assessed using self-reported measures, including:
• Participation in routine health check-ups
• Blood pressure screening
• Blood glucose testing
• Preventive consultations with healthcare providers
Preventive healthcare utilization was considered present if participants reported undergoing at
least one preventive health service within the past 12 months.

Data Analysis[18]
Data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using IBM SPSS software. Descriptive
statistics were used to summarize sociodemographic characteristics, digital health access
indicators, and preventive healthcare utilization patterns. Frequencies, percentages, means,
and standard deviations were calculated as appropriate.

Bivariate analyses were conducted to examine associations between digital health access and
preventive healthcare utilization. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to
identify independent predictors of preventive healthcare utilization while adjusting for potential
confounders, including age, gender, education, and socioeconomic status. Results were
reported as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and a p-value of
less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethical Considerations[19]
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from an institutional ethics committee prior to data
collection. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and written informed consent was
obtained from all participants. Confidentiality of participant information was strictly maintained,
and data were used solely for research purposes. Participants were informed of their right to
withdraw from the study at any stage without any consequences.

Results
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Study Population
A total of 432 participants completed the community-based survey and were included in the
final analysis. The mean age of participants was 41.6 ± 13.2 years, with ages ranging from 18
to 78 years. Slightly more than half of the participants were male (53.2%), while females
constituted 46.8% of the sample. The majority of participants resided in urban areas (61.1%),
with the remaining 38.9% from semi-urban communities.

Educational attainment varied across the sample, with 27.5% having completed primary
education or less, 38.2% secondary education, and 34.3% holding a graduate degree or
higher. Approximately 44.7% of participants reported monthly household income below the
median income level for the study area[20].

Epidemiol Public Health OA 6

Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 432)
Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Age (years) 18–29 86 19.9
30–44 142 32.9
45–59 126 29.2
≥60 78 18.1
Gender Male 230 53.2
Female 202 46.8
Residence Urban 264 61.1
Semi-urban 168 38.9
Education ≤Primary 119 27.5
Secondary 165 38.2
Graduate & above 148 34.3
Income level Below median 193 44.7
Above median 239 55.3

Prevalence of Digital Health Access [21]

Overall, 71.5% of participants reported owning a smartphone, while 28.5% did not have access
to a smartphone. Regular internet availability was reported by 63.9%, whereas 21.8% had
intermittent access and 14.3% reported no internet access. Adequate digital literacy was
observed in 58.6% of participants.

Based on the composite digital health access score, 247 participants (57.2%) were categorized
as having adequate digital health access, while 185 participants (42.8%) were classified as
having limited digital health access.

Table 2. Digital Health Access Indicators

Indicator Category n (%)
Smartphone ownership Yes 309 (71.5)
No 123 (28.5)
Internet access Regular 276 (63.9)
Intermittent 94 (21.8)
None 62 (14.3)
Digital literacy Adequate 253 (58.6)
Limited 179 (41.4)
Composite digital access Adequate 247 (57.2)
Limited 185 (42.8)

Preventive Healthcare Utilization [22]

Among the total participants, 61.8% reported utilizing at least one preventive healthcare
service within the past 12 months. Blood pressure screening was the most commonly reported
preventive service (54.6%), followed by blood glucose testing (47.9%) and routine health
check-ups (39.4%).
Participants with adequate digital health access demonstrated significantly higher utilization of
preventive healthcare services compared to those with limited access.

Epidemiol Public Health OA 7

Table 3. Preventive Healthcare Utilization Patterns
Preventive Service Utilized n (%)
Routine health check-up 170 (39.4)
Blood pressure screening 236 (54.6)
Blood glucose testing 207 (47.9)
Any preventive service 267 (61.8)

Association Between Digital Health Access and Preventive Healthcare Utilization

Preventive healthcare utilization was significantly higher among participants with adequate
digital health access (74.5%) compared to those with limited access (45.9%) (χ² = 36.82, p
< 0.001).

Table 4. Digital Health Access and Preventive Healthcare Utilization

Digital Access Level Preventive Care Utilized n (%) Not Utilized n (%)
Adequate (n=247) 184 (74.5) 63 (25.5)
Limited (n=185) 85 (45.9) 100 (54.1)

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis [23]

Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of
preventive healthcare utilization. After adjusting for age, gender, education, income, and place
of residence, digital health access remained a strong and significant predictor of preventive
healthcare utilization.

Participants with adequate digital health access were 2.83 times more likely to utilize
preventive healthcare services compared to those with limited access (AOR = 2.83; 95% CI:
1.91–4.20).

Higher education level and older age were also independently associated with increased
preventive healthcare utilization.

Table 5. Predictors of Preventive Healthcare Utilization (Logistic Regression)

Variable Adjusted OR 95% CI p-value
Adequate digital access 2.83 1.91–4.20 <0.001
Age ≥45 years 1.67 1.12–2.48 0.012
Graduate education 1.94 1.28–2.93 0.002
Above median income 1.41 0.96–2.08 0.076
Urban residence 1.22 0.83–1.80 0.312

Summary of Key Findings [24]

The results demonstrate substantial inequality in digital health access within the community
and reveal a strong epidemiological association between digital access and preventive
healthcare utilization. Digital health access emerged as an independent determinant of
preventive care uptake, even after controlling for sociodemographic factors. These findings
highlight digital access inequality as a critical public health issue with direct implications for
preventive healthcare delivery.

Discussion
The present community-based survey provides epidemiological evidence on digital health
access inequality and its association with preventive healthcare utilization among adults in
Epidemiol Public Health OA 8
India. The findings demonstrate that access to digital health resources is unevenly distributed
within the community and that these disparities are significantly associated with differences in
preventive healthcare uptake. Even after controlling for key sociodemographic factors, digital
health access emerged as an independent predictor of preventive healthcare utilization,
underscoring its relevance as an emerging determinant of population health.

One of the key findings of this study is the substantial proportion of participants experiencing
limited digital health access. Despite the widespread penetration of mobile technology in India,
a considerable segment of the population lacked regular internet access, adequate digital
literacy, or engagement with digital health services. This highlights that digital inclusion cannot
be assumed solely on the basis of device ownership. Instead, digital health access should be
understood as a multidimensional construct encompassing connectivity, skills, and effective
use. From an epidemiological standpoint, failure to account for these dimensions may lead to
underestimation of health inequalities linked to digital exclusion.

The observed prevalence of preventive healthcare utilization in this study, although higher
than that reported in some earlier community-based studies, remains suboptimal given the
rising burden of non-communicable diseases in India. Preventive services such as blood
pressure and blood glucose screening were more frequently utilized than routine health check-
ups, suggesting that preventive care is often episodic rather than systematic. This pattern may
reflect symptom-driven healthcare seeking behavior, limited awareness of comprehensive
preventive care, and fragmented engagement with primary healthcare services.

A central finding of this study is the significantly higher utilization of preventive healthcare
services among participants with adequate digital health access. Individuals with better digital
access were more likely to report routine health check-ups and screening for common chronic
conditions. This association persisted after adjusting for age, education, income, and
residence, indicating that digital health access exerts an independent influence on preventive
healthcare behavior. These findings align with the growing body of international literature
suggesting that digital health tools can facilitate preventive care by improving access to health
information, appointment scheduling, reminders, and remote consultations.

From a public health perspective, digital health platforms may enhance preventive healthcare
utilization through multiple mechanisms. Digital access enables individuals to seek health
information proactively, increasing awareness of disease risk factors and the importance of
early detection. Telemedicine and online appointment systems can reduce logistical barriers
such as travel time and waiting periods, which are commonly cited obstacles to preventive
care in community settings. Additionally, digital reminders and health monitoring applications
may reinforce adherence to recommended screening schedules and follow-up visits.

The findings also reveal that education level and age were significant predictors of preventive
healthcare utilization. Older adults and individuals with higher educational attainment were
more likely to utilize preventive services, consistent with previous epidemiological studies.
However, the strong association between digital health access and preventive care suggests
that digital inclusion may partially mitigate traditional socioeconomic barriers. This has
important implications for health equity, as targeted digital health interventions could
potentially improve preventive care uptake among populations that are otherwise
disadvantaged.

Epidemiol Public Health OA 9

Interestingly, income and urban residence were not independently associated with preventive
healthcare utilization after adjustment, suggesting that digital health access may act as a
mediating factor between socioeconomic status and healthcare utilization. This finding
supports the argument that digital health access inequality represents a distinct and actionable
public health issue rather than a mere proxy for broader socioeconomic disadvantage.
Addressing digital disparities could therefore contribute to narrowing gaps in preventive
healthcare utilization across different population groups.

The implications of these findings are particularly relevant in the context of India’s ongoing
digital health transformation. National initiatives aimed at expanding digital health
infrastructure and promoting telehealth services have the potential to improve preventive care
delivery at scale. However, the present study highlights the risk that such initiatives may
inadvertently widen health inequalities if digital access and literacy gaps are not adequately
addressed. Populations with limited digital resources may be excluded from the benefits of
digital health innovations, reinforcing existing disparities in preventive healthcare utilization.

Community-based strategies are essential to ensure that digital health interventions are
inclusive and equitable. Public health programs should prioritize digital literacy training,
particularly for older adults and individuals with lower educational attainment. Integrating
digital health support into primary healthcare settings, such as community health centers, may
help bridge the gap between digital and non-digital populations. In addition, hybrid models
that combine digital and face-to-face preventive services may be necessary to ensure
continuity of care for individuals with limited digital access.

The findings of this study also have implications for epidemiological surveillance and health
system planning. Digital health platforms generate large volumes of health data that can
support disease monitoring, risk assessment, and targeted interventions. However, if digital
data predominantly represent digitally connected populations, surveillance systems may fail to
capture the health needs of digitally excluded groups. This could lead to biased estimates of
disease prevalence and preventive care coverage, ultimately affecting resource allocation and
policy decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further emphasized the importance of digital health access in
maintaining healthcare continuity during public health emergencies. While digital platforms
played a crucial role in enabling remote care, the pandemic also exposed deep-rooted digital
inequalities. The present study adds to this evidence by demonstrating that digital access
disparities extend beyond crisis contexts and have enduring implications for routine preventive
healthcare utilization.

Despite its strengths, this study has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. The
cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, and the observed associations should be
interpreted as correlational. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias or social
desirability bias, although efforts were made to minimize these effects through structured
interviews. Additionally, the use of convenience sampling may limit the generalizability of the
findings to other settings. Nevertheless, the community-based approach and inclusion of
multiple digital access indicators enhance the relevance and robustness of the results.

Future research should consider longitudinal designs to examine causal pathways between
digital health access and preventive healthcare utilization. Qualitative studies could provide
deeper insights into individual experiences, perceptions, and barriers related to digital health
Epidemiol Public Health OA 10
use in community settings. Further exploration of gender-specific and rural-urban differences
in digital health access may also inform targeted interventions[25].

In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing epidemiological evidence that digital health
access inequality is a significant determinant of preventive healthcare utilization in community
populations. Addressing digital disparities should be recognized as a public health priority and
integrated into broader strategies aimed at strengthening preventive healthcare systems. By
promoting inclusive digital health policies and community-based interventions, it may be
possible to enhance preventive care uptake and improve population health outcomes in India.

Conclusion and Public Health Implications

This community-based epidemiological study highlights digital health access inequality as a
significant and independent determinant of preventive healthcare utilization among adults in
India. The findings demonstrate that individuals with adequate access to digital health
resources are substantially more likely to engage in preventive healthcare behaviors, including
routine health check-ups and screening for common chronic conditions. These associations
persist even after accounting for key sociodemographic factors, underscoring the importance
of digital access beyond traditional determinants of healthcare utilization.

The results suggest that digital health access is not merely a technological issue but a public
health concern with direct implications for health equity and disease prevention. As India
continues to experience a growing burden of non-communicable diseases, strengthening
preventive healthcare utilization is essential for reducing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare
costs. Digital health platforms have the potential to support these goals by enhancing health
awareness, improving service accessibility, and facilitating continuity of care. However, the
benefits of digital health innovations can only be realized if access is inclusive and equitable.

From a policy perspective, the findings emphasize the need to integrate digital inclusion
strategies into national and state-level public health programs. Efforts to expand digital health
infrastructure should be accompanied by targeted initiatives to improve digital literacy,
particularly among older adults, individuals with lower educational attainment, and
socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Community-based digital health education
programs, delivered through primary healthcare centers and community health workers, may
play a critical role in bridging digital gaps and promoting preventive healthcare utilization.

The study also underscores the importance of adopting hybrid models of healthcare delivery
that combine digital and face-to-face services. Such models can ensure that individuals with
limited digital access are not excluded from preventive care while still leveraging the efficiency
and scalability of digital health tools. Additionally, public health planners should consider digital
access indicators when designing preventive healthcare interventions and evaluating program
coverage, as digital exclusion may mask unmet preventive care needs within communities.

In conclusion, addressing digital health access inequality represents a critical opportunity to

strengthen preventive healthcare systems and advance health equity in India. By prioritizing
inclusive digital health strategies, policymakers and public health practitioners can enhance
preventive healthcare utilization and contribute to improved population health outcomes.

Epidemiol Public Health OA 11

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research
Strengths
One of the key strengths of this study is its community-based design, which allows for the
examination of preventive healthcare utilization in real-world settings beyond formal
healthcare facilities. This approach enhances the public health relevance of the findings and
provides insights into population-level behaviors that are often underrepresented in hospital-
based research.

Another strength lies in the multidimensional assessment of digital health access. By

incorporating indicators such as smartphone ownership, internet availability, digital literacy,
and actual use of digital health services, the study provides a comprehensive understanding
of digital health access inequality. The use of multivariable regression analysis further
strengthens the findings by accounting for potential confounding factors and identifying
independent predictors of preventive healthcare utilization.

Limitations
Despite these strengths, the study has several limitations that should be considered when
interpreting the results. The cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal
relationships between digital health access and preventive healthcare utilization. Longitudinal
studies are needed to determine the temporal direction of these associations.

The reliance on self-reported data may introduce recall bias or social desirability bias,
potentially affecting the accuracy of reported preventive healthcare utilization and digital
health use. Additionally, the use of a convenience sampling technique may limit the
generalizability of the findings to other regions or populations. Future studies employing
probability-based sampling methods could enhance representativeness and external validity.

Future Research
Future research should explore longitudinal and interventional study designs to better
understand causal pathways between digital health access and preventive healthcare behavior.
Qualitative studies may provide deeper insights into individual perceptions, cultural factors,
and barriers influencing digital health engagement in community settings.

Further investigation is also needed to examine subgroup differences, including gender-

specific, rural–urban, and age-related variations in digital health access and preventive
healthcare utilization. Evaluating the effectiveness of targeted digital literacy interventions and
community-based digital health programs could inform evidence-based policy development.

References
1. World Health Organization. Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. Geneva: WHO;
2021.
2. Kickbusch I, Agrawal A, Jack A, Lee N. Digital health: new frontiers for global health.
Lancet. 2019;393(10181):2076–8.
3. Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, Bloomer E, Goldblatt P. WHO European review of social
determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet. 2012;380(9846):1011–29.
4. van Dijk JAGM. The digital divide. Polity Press; 2020.
5. Kruse CS, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M. Evaluating barriers to adopting
telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(1):4–12.
6. Agarwal S, LeFevre AE, Lee J, L’Engle K, Mehl G, Sinha C, et al. Guidelines for reporting
of health interventions using mobile phones (mHealth). BMJ. 2016;352: i1174.
Epidemiol Public Health OA 12
 7. Viswanath K, Kreuter MW. Health disparities, communication inequalities, and eHealth.
Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(5 Suppl):S131–3.
8. Smith A. Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center; 2014.
9. Adler NE, Newman K. Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health
Aff. 2002;21(2):60–76.
10. Medarametla RT, Gopaiah KV, Suresh Kumar JN, Kumar Sai A, Mohana Chari G, Kranti
Kiran A, et al. Clinical investigation of valsartan sustained-release matrix tablets:
Formulation design and performance evaluation. J Pharm Res Int. 2024;36(2):39–54.
11. Labrique AB, Vasudevan L, Kochi E, Fabricant R, Mehl G. mHealth innovations as health
system strengthening tools. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001382.
12. Gupta R, Gaur K, S Ram CV. Emerging trends in hypertension epidemiology in India. J
Hum Hypertens. 2019;33(8):575–87.
13. Patel V, Chatterji S, Chisholm D, Ebrahim S, Gopalakrishna G, Mathers C, et al. Chronic
diseases and injuries in India. Lancet. 2011;377(9763):413–28.
14. Kancharla S, Kolli P, Venkata Gopaiah K. Nanosuspension formulation & evaluation of
ritonavir & valsartan by using poloxamer as a stabilizing agent to enhance the oral
bioavailability. Int J Health Care Biol Sci. 2021;2(1):04–17.
15. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, et al. Beyond
adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption of digital health
innovations. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367.
16. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal. Health Promot Int. 2000;15(3):259–
67.
17. Kim H, Xie B. Health literacy and internet- and mobile app-based health services. J
Health Commun. 2017;22(8):727–35.
18. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–
8.
19. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health.
Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502.
20. Golinelli D, Boetto E, Carullo G, Nuzzolese AG, Landini MP, Fantini MP. Adoption of digital
technologies in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2020;17(18):6711.
21. Gopaiah KV, Medarametala RT, Suresh Kumar JN, Sahithi C, Eswari D, Sai Prasanna G,
et al. Comprehensive analysis of nizatidine: Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics
in anti-ulcer treatment. World J Adv Res Rev. 2024;23(03):2260–6.
doi:10.30574/[Link] P, Sloninsky D. Towards the development
of an mHealth strategy. Geneva: WHO; 2008.
22. Dasgupta A, Garg S, Maharana SP, Paul B, Bandyopadhyay L. Awareness of NCD risk
factors and screening practices in India. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(1):220–5.
23. Balarajan Y, Selvaraj S, Subramanian SV. Health care and equity in India. Lancet.
2011;377(9764):505–15.
24. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):e20.
25. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
26. Park E, Kwon M. Health-related internet use by children and adolescents. Telemed J E
Health. 2018;24(4):310–7.

Epidemiol Public Health OA 13