Abstract:Background Digital health technologies (ie, the integration of digital technology and health information) aim to increase the efficiency of health care delivery; they are rapidly adapting to health care contexts to provide improved medical services for citizens. However, contrary to expectations, their rapid adoption appears to have led to health inequities, with differences in health conditions or inequality in the distribution of health care resources among different populations. Objective This scoping review aims to identify and describe the inequities of health care services brought about by the adoption of digital health technologies. The factors influencing such inequities, as well as the corresponding countermeasures to ensure health equity among different groups of citizens, were also studied. Methods Primary studies and literature, including articles and reviews, published in English between 1990 and 2020 were retrieved using appropriate search strategies across the following three electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Data management was performed by two authors (RY and WZ) using Thomson Endnote (Clarivate Analytics, Inc), by systematically screening and identifying eligible articles for this study. Any conflicts of opinion were resolved through discussions with the corresponding author. A qualitative descriptive synthesis was performed to determine the outcomes of this scoping review. Results A total of 2325 studies were collected during the search process, of which 41 (1.76%) papers were identified for further analysis. The quantity of literature increased until 2016, with a peak in 2020. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway ranked among the top 3 countries for publication output. Health inequities caused by the adoption of digital health technologies in health care services can be reflected in the following two dimensions: the inability of citizens to obtain and adopt technology and the different disease outcomes found among citizens under technical intervention measures. The factors that influenced inequities included age, race, region, economy, and education level, together with health conditions and eHealth literacy. Finally, action can be taken to alleviate inequities in the future by government agencies and medical institutions (eg, establishing national health insurance), digital health technology providers (eg, designing high-quality tools), and health care service recipients (eg, developing skills to access digital technologies). Conclusions The application of digital health technologies in health care services has caused inequities to some extent. However, existing research has certain limitations. The findings provide a comprehensive starting point for future research, allowing for further investigation into how digital health technologies may influence the unequal distribution of health care services. The interaction between individual subjective factors as well as social support and influencing factors should be included in future studies. Specifically, access to and availability of digital health technologies for socially disadvantaged groups should be of paramount importance.

Medical devices: Government vows to tackle ethnic inequities

Tackling bias in medical devices: the Equity in Medical Devices Independent Review is welcome, but could have gone further

Going beyond the means: Exploring the role of bias from digital determinants of health in technologies

A review of the current policies and guidance regarding Apgar scoring and the detection of jaundice and cyanosis concerning Black, Asian and ethnic minority neonates

Health Disparities and Reporting Gaps in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Enabled Medical Devices: A Scoping Review of 692 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510k Approvals

Pulse Oximeter Performance, Racial Inequity, and the Work Ahead

A scoping review of reporting gaps in FDA-approved AI medical devices

Digital health, cardiometabolic disease and ethnicity: an analysis of United Kingdom government policies from 2010 to 2022

Crackdown on skin colour bias by fingertip oxygen sensors is coming, hints FDA

Anti-racist interventions to reduce ethnic disparities in healthcare in the UK: an umbrella review and findings from healthcare, education and criminal justice

A requirement for the use of supplementary oxygen to guide medical treatment decisions may introduce bias against non-white individuals

Ethnic minority representation in UK COVID-19 trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

The bias algorithm: how AI in healthcare exacerbates ethnic and racial disparities – a scoping review

Living less safely through the pandemic in England for people with serious mental and physical health conditions: qualitative interviews with service users and carers of Black African, Caribbean, and South-Asian descent

Stark exclusion of ethnic minorities in genetic research must change, say experts

Promoting Health Equity through Improved Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices

Inequities in Health Care Services Caused by the Adoption of Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review

Ethnic inequalities among NHS staff in England: workplace experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications

Racial Biases Associated With Pulse Oximetry: Longitudinal Social Network Analysis of Social Media Advocacy Impact

Peer review of funding applications for health research in ethnic minority groups must improve