Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835
Books209
All textbooksMedical textbooksHuman anatomyOrganisms & biodiversityOther sciences
Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Evaluating the national rollout of the NHS App in England using qualitative and quantitative methods›Equality, diversity and inclusion

Continue where you left off ()

GO BEYOND THE PAGEReading is just the beginning.

Turn scientific reading into research. Compare studies, examine evidence, and organize your findings in EvidenceHelix Workspace.

Explore Research Workspace →

Evaluating the national rollout of the NHS App in England using qualitative and quantitative methods · Equality, diversity and inclusion

Equality, diversity and inclusion

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 3 min read

Language and terminology

In this research, terminology has been carefully selected to ensure sensitivity to the diverse characteristics of the population groups studied. We have described the socioeconomic and demographic variables in terms of deprivation levels, ethnic backgrounds, age groups, and health status to clearly present differences in disease burden and access to digital health resources. Language used in the report aims to reflect inclusivity and accuracy, and to not assume homogeneity within these groups.

Consideration of disease burden and epidemiological differences

The study extensively examines the differences in the application of the NHS App among various population groups, focusing on the disparities in usage rates linked to the broader epidemiological context of health inequalities. It considers how existing preventative, screening, or diagnostic strategies might be differentially accessed through the NHS App. For example, the study highlights how demographic variables such as age and ethnicity influence the utilisation of specific app functions like medical record views or prescription orders, potentially reflecting varying disease burdens across these groups.

Generalisability and transferability of evidence

Findings from this research are intended to be generalisable to broader NHS settings, albeit with an understanding of the inherent limitations of both the qualitative approach, and the use of aggregated, practice-level data in the quantitative work. Insights into how different demographic groups engage with digital health tools can inform the development and adaptation of similar apps in different regions or contexts, enhancing their relevance and effectiveness.

Participant representation

The quantitative work prioritised comprehensive participant representation by analysing data from a national scale across England, encompassing diverse GP practices. By categorising these practices into quartiles and quintiles based on sociodemographic indicators, the research ensures a nuanced analysis that considers the gradient of deprivation and demographic diversity.

Enrolment and retention of diverse participants

In the qualitative work, we used theoretical and maximum variation sampling to ensure a diverse sample of patient/public participants, with diversity achieved in terms of their age, gender, ethnicity, caring responsibilities, and diverse experiences of illness and access to health services. While the quantitative work did not involve direct enrolment of participants (as it used existing databases), the population samples analysed were representative in terms of their diverse demographic characteristics.

Participant data

Careful attention has been given to the handling of participant data, with measures to protect confidentiality, privacy and ensure data integrity. The quantitative work only used aggregated data without personal identifiers, adhering to ethical standards and data protection regulations. This approach respects participant confidentiality while allowing for the analysis of significant trends across population groups.

Reflections on the research team and wider involvement

Our research team comprises individuals from diverse academic and professional backgrounds, which enriches our approach to the EDI aspects of the study. We also engaged with patient and public groups to validate our findings and methodologies, ensuring that the perspectives of app users from varied backgrounds are considered in interpreting the data and formulating recommendations.

Conclusion

This work incorporated diverse perspectives in the evaluation of the NHS App. By understanding and addressing the disparities in NHS App usage, we aim to contribute to more equitable healthcare outcomes through improved digital health services. Moving forward, the engagement with diverse groups and reflection on our research practices will help the inclusivity of health innovations, and their evaluation. Further consideration on the implications of our findings, and actions that should be taken in future, around inequality in app use are covered in Chapter 9.

← Reflections on challenges of evaluating a major government project, research approaches used and research recommendationsDiscussion including overall findings, impact, implications and recommendations →

Attribution. Felix Greaves; Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Sukriti Kc; Salina Tewolde; Claire Reidy; Bernard Gudgin et al. (2026). Evaluating the national rollout of the NHS App in England using qualitative and quantitative methods. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2026 Greaves et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK622647. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • Equality, diversity and inclusion

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support