Technology-Based Interventions to Address Pediatric Health Disparities

  • Michelle A. Lopez
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Public Health book series (BRIEFSPUBLIC)


As we delve into interventions, it is important to consider that strategies aimed at improving disparate health outcomes may potentially have higher uptake and greater results in populations with better baseline health. The most successful strategies avoid widening disparities in their design. This section will explore potential benefits and barriers to Technology-Based Interventions.


  1. 1.
    Falling through the Net: toward digital inclusion: a report on Americans’ access to technology tools. US Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration. 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2010. Accessed 5 Nov 2017.
  3. 3.
    Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  4. 4.
    Lenhart A, Ling R, Campbell S, Purcell K, Sabri E. Teens and mobile phones. Pew Research Center. 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lenhart A. Teens, social media, and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badawy SM, Thompson AA, Liem RI. Technology access and smartphone app preferences for medication adherence in adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63:848–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crosby LE, Ware RE, Goldstein A, et al. Development and evaluation of iManage: a self-management app co-designed by adolescents with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64:139–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burke LE, Ma J, Azar KM, et al. Current science on consumer use of mobile health for cardiovascular disease prevention: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132:1157–213.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vodopivec-Jamsek V, de Jongh T, Gurol-Urganci I, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging for preventive health care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD007457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardinge M, Rutter H, Velardo C, et al. Using a mobile health application to support self-management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a six-month cohort study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fu H, McMahon SK, Gross CR, Adam TJ, Wyman JF. Usability and clinical efficacy of diabetes mobile applications for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;131:70–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khaylis A, Yiaslas T, Bergstrom J, Gore-Felton C. A review of efficacious technology-based weight-loss interventions: five key components. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:931–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin CL, Mistry N, Boneh J, Li H, Lazebnik R. Text message reminders increase appointment adherence in a pediatric clinic: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Pediatr. 2016;2016:8487378.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, et al. Text4Health: impact of text message reminder-recalls for pediatric and adolescent immunizations. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:e15–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new continuous glucose monitor for diabetes. News release, Sept. 29th, 2017.
  16. 16.
    Holt D. Branding in the age of social media. Harvard Business Review. Accessed 18 June 2017.
  17. 17.
    Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. JCMC. 2007;13(1):210–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenwood SPA, Duggan M. Social media update 2016. Pew Research Center. Accessed 15 June 2017.
  19. 19.
    Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torre-Diez ID-PF, Anton-Rodriguez M. A content analysis of chronic diseases social groups on Facebook and twitter. Telemed E-Health. 2012;18(6):404–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reich J, Guo L, Hall J, et al. A survey of social media use and preferences in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22:2678–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones K, Eathington P, Baldwin K, Sipsma H. The impact of health education transmitted via social media or text messaging on adolescent and young adult risky sexual behavior: a systematic review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:413–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strasser SM, Smith M, Pendrick-Denney D, Boos-Beddington S, Chen K, McCarty F. Feasibility study of social media to reduce intimate partner violence among gay men in metro Atlanta, Georgia. West J Emerg Med. 2012;13:298–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Houston JB, Hawthorne J, Perreault MF, et al. Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters. 2015;39:1–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silverman L. Facebook, Twitter replace 911 calls for stranded in Houston. Accessed 12 Sept 2017.
  26. 26.
    Martinez B, Dailey F, Almario CV, et al. Patient understanding of the risks and benefits of biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease: insights from a large-scale analysis of social media platforms. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23:1057–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wiener LCC, Grady C, Merchang M. To friend or not to friend: the use of social media in clinical oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(2):103–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weinstein RS, Lopez AM, Joseph BA, et al. Telemedicine, telehealth, and mobile health applications that work: opportunities and barriers. Am J Med. 2014;127:183–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kvedar J, Coye MJ, Everett W. Connected health: a review of technologies and strategies to improve patient care with telemedicine and telehealth. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choi NG, Marti CN, Bruce ML, Hegel MT, Wilson NL, Kunik ME. Six-month postintervention depression and disability outcomes of in-home telehealth problem-solving therapy for depressed, low-income homebound older adults. Depress Anxiety. 2014;31:653–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi NG, Hegel MT, Marti N, Marinucci ML, Sirrianni L, Bruce ML. Telehealth problem-solving therapy for depressed low-income homebound older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014;22:263–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sheeber LB, Feil EG, Seeley JR, et al. Mom-net: evaluation of an internet-facilitated cognitive behavioral intervention for low-income depressed mothers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017;85:355–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle A. Lopez
    • 1
  1. 1.Pediatrics-Hospital MedicineBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations