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 messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study highlights how the use of technology in care can deepen inequalities when digital systems become the default route for access. For adults from minoritised ethnic communities, barriers linked to device access, data affordability and language support intersect with existing structural disadvantages.

The findings challenge assumptions that digital access is inherently efficient or inclusive. Where systems are designed without consideration of lived experience, technology can displace barriers rather than remove them. From an equity perspective, this raises concerns about who digital transformation is designed for and who it leaves behind.

The reliance on informal staff workarounds illustrates the strain placed on frontline services. While these adaptations may help individual patients, they are inconsistent and fragile, masking systemic exclusion rather than addressing it.

Overall, the study highlights that the use of technology in care must be accompanied by inclusive design, meaningful alternatives and organisational support. Without this, digital-by-default models risk reinforcing inequities in access to primary care rather than reducing them.

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.