The Digital Divide in Brazil and Barriers to Telehealth and Equal Digital Health Care: Analysis of Internet Access Using Publicly Available Data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the use of digital solutions in medical care, especially for patients in remote areas and those requiring regular medical care. However, internet access is essential for the implementation of digital health care. The digital divide is the unequal distribution of access to digital technology, and the first level digital divide encompasses structural barriers. Brazil, a country with economic inequality and uneven population distribution, faces challenges in achieving internet access for all. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the first-level digital divide in Brazil, estimate the relationship between variables, and identify the challenges and opportunities for digital health care implementation. METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics National Continuous House survey database, including demographic, health, and internet-related variables. Statistical analysis included 2-tailed t tests, chi-square, and multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between variables. RESULTS: Our analysis included 279,382 interviews throughout Brazil. The sample included more houses from the northeast (n=99,553) and fewer houses from the central west (n=30,804). A total of 223,386 (80.13%) of the interviewed population used the internet, with urban areas having higher internet access (187,671/212,109, 88.48%) than rural areas (35,715/67,077, 53.24%). Among the internet users, those interviewed who lived in urban houses, were women, were younger, and had higher income had a statistically higher prevalence (P<.001). Cell phones were the most common device used to access the internet (141,874/143,836, 98.63%). Reasons for not using the internet included lack of interest, knowledge, availability, and cost, with regional variations. The prevalence of internet access also varied among races, with 84,747 of 98,968 (85.63%) White respondents having access, compared to 22,234 of 28,272 (78.64%) Black respondents, 113,518 of 148,191 (76.6%) multiracial respondents, and 2887 of 3755 (76.88%) other respondents. In the southeast, central west, and south regions, the numbers of people with internet access were 49,790 of 56,298 (88.44%), 27,209 of 30,782 (88.39%), and 27,035 of 31,226 (86.58%), respectively, and in the north and northeast, 45,038 of 61,404 (73.35%) and 74,314 of 99,476 (74.7%). The income of internet users was twice the income of internet nonusers. Among those with diabetes-related limitations in daily activities, 945 of 2377 (39.75%) did not have internet access, and among those with daily activity restrictions, 1381 of 3644 (37.89%) did not have access. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, women (odds ratio [OR] 1.147, 95% CI 0.118-0.156; P<.001), urban households (OR 6.743, 95% CI 1.888-1.929; P<.001), and those earning more than the minimum wage (OR 2.087, 95% CI 0.716-0.756; P<.01) had a positive association with internet access. CONCLUSIONS: Brazil's diverse regions have different demographic distributions, house characteristics, and internet access levels, requiring targeted measures to address the first-level digital divide in rural areas and reduce inequalities in digital health solutions. Older people, poor, and rural populations face the greatest challenges in the first level digital divide in Brazil, highlighting the need to tackle the digital divide in order to promote equitable access to digital health care.

A scientometric analysis of fairness in health AI literature.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are central components of today's medical environment. The fairness of AI, i.e. the ability of AI to be free from bias, has repeatedly come into question. This study investigates the diversity of members of academia whose scholarship poses questions about the fairness of AI. The articles that combine the topics of fairness, artificial intelligence, and medicine were selected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Embase using keywords. Eligibility and data extraction from the articles were done manually and cross-checked by another author for accuracy. Articles were selected for further analysis, cleaned, and organized in Microsoft Excel; spatial diagrams were generated using Public Tableau. Additional graphs were generated using Matplotlib and Seaborn. Linear and logistic regressions were conducted using Python to measure the relationship between funding status, number of citations, and the gender demographics of the authorship team. We identified 375 eligible publications, including research and review articles concerning AI and fairness in healthcare. Analysis of the bibliographic data revealed that there is an overrepresentation of authors that are white, male, and are from high-income countries, especially in the roles of first and last author. Additionally, analysis showed that papers whose authors are based in higher-income countries were more likely to be cited more often and published in higher impact journals. These findings highlight the lack of diversity among the authors in the AI fairness community whose work gains the largest readership, potentially compromising the very impartiality that the AI fairness community is working towards.