Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study provides evidence that community-led digital inclusion initiatives can improve engagement with digital health services. By working through voluntary and community sector organisations, the programme was able to reach residents who might otherwise remain excluded from digital care.

Considering care equity, the findings reinforce the importance of place-based delivery. Digital exclusion is shaped by local factors, including trust, social networks and access to support, which community organisations are often well placed to address.

The emphasis on partnership working highlights that digital inclusion is not solely a technical challenge. Social relationships and local infrastructure play a key role in enabling people to engage with digital health services.

However, the study also highlights evidence gaps. Without controlled designs and analysis, it remains unclear which groups benefit most and whether digital inclusion reduces or widens inequalities. Strengthening evaluation methods will be important to guide future use of technology in care.

Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This report positions digital access as a foundational condition for participation in modern health and social care systems. By quantifying the scale of digital poverty and its underlying drivers, it shows that exclusion from digital services is not marginal but widespread.

The findings highlight how digital poverty maps onto existing patterns of disadvantage. People with lower incomes, weaker infrastructure and fewer digital skills are more likely to face barriers to online health information, digital appointments and technology-enabled care. As digital routes become increasingly embedded in service delivery, these gaps translate directly into unequal access.

Rather than framing digital exclusion as an individual deficit, the report emphasises its structural nature. Access to devices, affordable connectivity and skills support emerges as a prerequisite for fair access to care, not an optional add-on.

Overall, the analysis supports that efforts to expand digital health and care must be accompanied by large-scale investment in inclusion. Without addressing digital poverty directly, the use of technology in care risks reinforcing existing social and care inequalities rather than helping to reduce them.

Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This report provides an economic assessment of digital inclusion in the UK, focusing on the potential benefits of improving digital skills across the population. The analysis frames digital inclusion as a key component of economic participation, with implications for productivity, employment and the use of public services.

The findings suggest that improving digital skills could also generate savings for the NHS, partly through increased use of online services and reduced demand for in-person appointments. This reflects the growing role of digital channels in accessing health information, services and administrative processes.

From a care equity perspective, the report highlights the risk that digitalisation of services may disadvantage people without access to digital skills, devices or connectivity. Older adults and individuals with lower digital literacy are projected to make up a significant proportion of those who remain digitally excluded in the future. Without targeted support, these groups may face increasing barriers to accessing health and social care services that are delivered or coordinated through digital systems.

Overall, the analysis reinforces the argument that digital inclusion should be treated as a core public infrastructure issue. Investments in digital skills, connectivity and support services may help reduce exclusion from digital health and care services while improving the efficiency of public service delivery.

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

This study explores how the move towards digital GP services is affecting people from minoritised ethnic communities in the UK. It shows that while digital systems are intended to improve access, they can create new barriers for people who already face disadvantages. 

Many participants described what the authors call “digital precarity”. This includes not having reliable internet, lacking suitable devices, or not having the skills to use online systems. For some people living on low incomes or in temporary housing, even downloading GP apps or maintaining mobile data was difficult. 

Language is another major issue. Most GP apps and online systems are only available in English, which makes it difficult for people who are not confident in reading or writing English. Some rely on family members or friends to help, which can reduce privacy and delay care. 

The study also highlights how care responsibilities are unevenly distributed. Women in multi-generational households often manage multiple GP accounts for children, parents and relatives. This creates additional pressure and can slow down access to services. 

There are also concerns about how digital systems are used in clinical care. Some participants reported that sending photos or describing symptoms online did not work well for people with darker skin tones. This reflects wider gaps in clinical training and risks delaying diagnosis or treatment. 

From a health and social care equity perspective, the findings show how digital transformation can widen existing inequities if systems are not designed inclusively. People who face barriers related to income, language, ethnicity or housing are more likely to be excluded from digital services. 

Overall, the study highlights that improving access is not only about introducing new technology. It requires designing services around the needs of different groups, maintaining alternative access routes, and addressing structural inequities that affect how people engage with care.