Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Research Opportunities in Sociotechnical Interventions for Health Disparity Reduction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Health technology research should aim at the social and structural causes of health disparities rather than individual behavior change alone, the report argues.

desk verdict A solid agenda-setting workshop report with one genuine soft spot: the upstream-over-downstream priority is built on a single 2013 non-digital umbrella review, so treat it as a hypothesis, not a settled conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01035 v2 pith:4LPEBQRH submitted 2019-08-02 cs.CY

Katie Siek , Tiffany Veinot , Beth Mynatt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords healthdisparitiessociotechnicalinterventionsupstreamequityparticipatorydesignbehaviorchangetheorymresearchagenda
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This workshop report builds a shared research agenda for making health technology work for marginalized populations. Its central claim is that most current sociotechnical interventions are "downstream"—they ask individuals to manage their own behavior—and evidence suggests these approaches help advantaged groups more, widening the gaps they aim to close. The report therefore argues that research should move "upstream" toward interventions that change social, economic, and structural conditions, while also fixing the way studies recruit, retain, engage, measure, and protect marginalized participants. If the agenda is followed, funders and researchers would prioritize participatory design, equity-centered evaluation, and the creation of shared infrastructure for collaboration—changes that would reshape how health informatics is practiced.

What carries the argument

The framework that carries the argument is an extended social-determinants model of health disparities, which locates the ultimate causes of disparities in macro-level sociopolitical and economic forces and names four mechanisms—stratification, differential exposure, differential vulnerability, and differential consequences—through which those forces produce unequal health. Interventions that target these mechanisms, moving from immediate individual behavior toward the structural left side of the model, count as "upstream." The report pairs this model with a typology of six technology capabilities (social coordination, communication mediation, resource distribution, decision framing, education, and information access) and with a "sociotechnical black box" checklist—participatory design, data quality, dosing, and theory mapping—that researchers should use to open up how interventions work.

What would settle it

A meta-analysis of digital health behavior-change interventions that reports effect sizes separately for marginalized and advantaged participants could settle the key premise. If such an analysis found marginalized groups benefiting as much as or more than advantaged groups from downstream interventions, the report's case for shifting resources toward upstream interventions would be directly undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The report's central claim is that the way sociotechnical health systems are currently designed and evaluated reproduces health disparities. It contends that downstream interventions—those that focus on individual patient effort, behavior, and choice—are less effective for marginalized populations, and that the field must develop upstream and multi-level interventions that act on social stratification, differential exposures, vulnerability, and consequences. It also claims that every stage of the intervention cycle, from recruitment to retention to evaluation, currently favors advantaged groups, so equity must be built into methods, not added after the fact. The report consolidates its proposals into a table mapping research challenges to opportunities.

Load-bearing premise

The agenda's priority on upstream interventions—those that change social and structural conditions rather than individual behavior—rests on the generalization, drawn from equity-focused systematic reviews, that downstream individual-behavior interventions work less well for marginalized groups; the report treats this as settled rather than testing it for sociotechnical systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interventions would be designed and funded for communities and networks, not just individuals, with multi-level studies that measure outcomes at community and population scales as well as individual scales.
  • Evaluation would routinely include planned heterogeneity-of-treatment-effect analyses, equity-relevant outcome measures, and qualitative study of unintended consequences, making "for whom did this work?" a required question.
  • Researchers would document recruitment methods, demographics, dropout, engagement, and data provenance, turning under-reporting from a norm into a reported practice.
  • Funding would support pilot studies, iterative design, and small-N methods for marginalized populations, rather than treating only large randomized trials as acceptable evidence.
  • Shared national infrastructure would be built to reuse algorithms, data, and recruitment/retention strategies, with annual themes that converge on standard equity metrics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The report's own framing implies that a design which maximizes aggregate engagement could still be inequitable: if the marginal health benefit of each unit of "dose" is larger for advantaged users, then usage-maximizing features will widen disparities even when access is equal.
  • A concrete test of the upstream premise would be a study that logs intervention use and health outcomes by socioeconomic status and builds dose-response curves: if disadvantaged users need more use to get the same benefit, the priority should shift to lowering the required dose, not raising uptake.
  • The six technology capabilities could be repurposed as an audit checklist for existing consumer health platforms, allowing retrospective equity assessments of products already in wide use—an application the report calls for but does not perform.
  • The consortium proposal implies that shared equity metrics could be validated through cross-study meta-analysis; the absence of such metrics today is itself a measurable obstacle to knowing which interventions reduce disparities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is the report of a two-day workshop sponsored by the Computing Community Consortium and held in conjunction with the Society for Behavioral Medicine's 2018 Annual Meeting. The workshop convened researchers from computing, health informatics, behavioral medicine, and health disparities research to develop an integrative research agenda for sociotechnical interventions to reduce health disparities among marginalized groups. The report organizes the agenda into five thematic areas: equity-centered intervention strategies and implementation approaches, with emphasis on upstream and multi-level interventions and on equity-centered recruitment, uptake, engagement, and retention; opening the 'sociotechnical black boxes' of participatory design, data quality, and dosing; using sociotechnical systems to inform behavioral theory; multidimensional evaluation, including equity impacts, unintended consequences, and research ethics; and interdisciplinary bridges, including a proposed consortium or national centers. Section 7 states the central claim: the report highlights cross-disciplinary research challenges and opportunities, which are summarized in a challenge/opportunity table. The agenda is grounded in the workshop discussions, in cited empirical literature, and in the attendees' consensus as reported by the authors.

Significance. The paper is a valuable agenda-setting document. If its priorities are sound, it can shape funding decisions and collaboration patterns across four fields that rarely coordinate. Strengths worth naming: the report generates a large set of concrete, actionable open questions; it makes equity impacts and unintended consequences central to the evaluation agenda (Box 2, Section 5.2); it is candid about field-level reporting gaps such as the pervasive non-reporting of participant demographics (Section 2.2) and dropout characteristics (Section 2.3); and it discloses its provenance fully, including the planning committee, attendee list, and NSF funding. Because this is a consensus report rather than a derivation, its value turns on the empirical premises underlying its priority ordering. On reading the full text, I find that the main correctness-risk concern raised in review — the untested transfer of the downstream-versus-upstream effectiveness gradient from non-digital interventions [19] to sociotechnical interventions — lands; it is treated as a major comment below.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, §7 (opportunity table)] The agenda's priority ordering rests on the claim in §2.1 that 'equity-focused systematic reviews have shown that downstream health behavior interventions tend to be less effective for marginalized populations than those that operate further upstream [19].' This is supported by a single citation, Lorenc et al. [19], a 2013 umbrella review whose evidence base is predominantly non-digital behavioral and structural interventions. The report immediately generalizes from this to 'a greater focus on upstream interventions in computing' and encodes the result as a challenge/opportunity row in the Section 7 table. No evidence is offered that the effectiveness gradient in [19] transfers to sociotechnical interventions, and mechanisms identified elsewhere in the report could cut the other way: differential uptake and engagement of digital tools (Sections 2.2–2.3) and differential benefits of 'universal' interventions (Section 5.2) could make an individually oriented sociotechnical intervention equity-improving in some contexts, or make an upstream-oriented digital system reproduce the gradient the report worries about. Because the Section 7 priority ordering would lose force if this premise fails for sociotechnical interventions, I treat the issue as load-bearing. The fix is within scope: either broaden the evidentiary base beyond [19], or explicitly reframe the upstream priority as a research hypothesis and add to the §2.1 open questions the question of whether the downstream/upstream gradient replicates for digital and sociotechnical interventions, assessed through the equity-focused individual-patient-data meta-analyses proposed in §5.2. The manuscript is candid about other evidence gaps (Sections 2.2, 2.3), so the absence of any caveat on this point is conspicuous.
  2. [§2.1 and Figure 1] The term 'upstream' is defined only directionally: interventions 'that move from the right to the left' in Figure 1 count as further upstream. Because Figure 1 depicts a causal chain of four mechanisms rather than an ordered scale with a threshold, the report gives no decision rule for classifying a particular intervention as downstream versus upstream. As stated, therefore, the agenda's priority ordering is not testable: two researchers could reasonably disagree about whether an intervention targeting mechanism (3), differences in vulnerability, or an individual-level intervention with meso-level spillovers, is upstream. I recommend an operational definition — for example, classifying interventions by which of the four mechanisms in Figure 1 they primarily target, with an explicit rule for multi-level interventions — or, alternatively, an explicit statement that developing such a classification is itself an open methodological question on the agenda.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 (§2.1)] The Figure 1 caption attributes the extended WHO model to reference [77], but reference [77] is E. Pain, 'A New Funding Model for Scientists' (Science, 2015), a careers article about research funding; the WHO social-determinants framework referenced in the text is [24] (Solar and Irwin 2017). The caption citation should be corrected.
  2. [§2.2, Box 1, §3.2, §3.3] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'sociotechical interventions' in §2.2, 'prevalance' in Box 1, 'in a researchers' possession' in §3.2, and 'for to administer a dose' in §3.3. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Sections 2–5] The report repeatedly attributes conclusions to 'workshop participants' without indicating how consensus was established or whether dissenting views existed; a brief methodological note in Section 1 describing how the open questions and challenges were aggregated (e.g., plenary summaries, small-group reports, post-workshop author curation) would increase the transparency of the agenda-setting process.
  4. [General formatting] Web resources are cited inconsistently: some appear as footnotes (e.g., the rural engagement center in §3.1 and the FCC-NCI Broadband Cancer Collaboration in §3.3) while other online sources appear in the numbered reference list; consolidating these citation formats would improve readability.
  5. [§4.1] The observation that workshop participants 'could only identify two health behavior theories or models that were developed specifically with marginalized populations' is presented without the search or selection methodology that would let readers assess it; adding a citation to a systematic search, or softening the claim to 'participants were unable to identify more than two,' would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the report is a consensus agenda statement, not a derivation; its load-bearing empirical premise about downstream interventions is cited to an independent systematic review, and author self-citations are supporting evidence rather than definitions.

full rationale

This paper is a workshop report that assembles a research agenda from expert discussion and literature; it does not claim to derive predictions from first principles, and there is no fitted parameter or equation whose output is fed back as an input. The central agenda statement in Section 7—that the listed challenges cut across disciplines and funding agencies—is a consensus recommendation, not a derived result. The one load-bearing empirical premise, in Section 2.1, is that 'equity-focused systematic reviews have shown that downstream health behavior interventions tend to be less effective for marginalized populations than those that operate further upstream [19]'; this rests on Lorenc et al. 2013, an independent umbrella review, not on the authors' own prior work or on data fitted in this report. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [18], [51] on unintended consequences of informatics interventions; [16], [17] on health IT research challenges) are external published evidence used to support specific claims, and none of them functions as a definition, a uniqueness theorem, or a prohibition of alternatives. There is no step in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the target conclusion, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in by self-citation. The report is therefore self-contained as a consensus document, and the noted dependence on a single review for the upstream/downstream priority ordering is a scientific-evidence concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted because no quantitative model is presented. The axioms listed are the load-bearing domain assumptions on which the research agenda rests. No new physical, formal, or computational entities are introduced; the term sociotechnical black boxes is a framing metaphor rather than a new entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Downstream health behavior interventions are less effective for marginalized populations than upstream interventions.
    Used in Section 2.1 to motivate the call for upstream interventions; relies on Lorenc et al. [19] equity-focused systematic reviews rather than on new evidence in this report.
  • domain assumption Marginalized groups are understudied because of recruitment, retention, and trust issues, and these issues are addressable through community-based participatory research.
    Adopted in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 as the basis for recommending CBPR and new retention methods; it is a working assumption about causes and remedies, not established in this report.
  • domain assumption Current sociobehavioral theories are dated and not representative of marginalized populations, limiting predictive power.
    Invoked in Section 4 to motivate building dynamic, multilevel theories; only two theories are identified as developed with marginalized populations, and this is a cited empirical claim rather than a demonstrated one.
  • domain assumption Sociotechnical interventions can generate unintended consequences that exacerbate disparities, so proactive equity evaluation is necessary.
    Forms the basis of Section 5.2 and Box 2; it is a reasonable precautionary premise, but it is not tested in this report.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Research Opportunities in Sociotechnical Interventions for Health Disparity Reduction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LPEBQRH

@misc{pith2026190801035,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Research Opportunities in Sociotechnical Interventions for Health Disparity Reduction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LPEBQRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01035}
}
read the original abstract

The implicit and explicit biases built into our computing systems are becoming increasingly clear -- they impact everything from targeting of advertisements to how we are identified as people. These biases disproportionately affect marginalized groups -- people who are excluded from mainstream social, economic, cultural, or political life -- more acutely. While these biases can affect all aspects of our lives, from leisure to criminal justice to personal finances, they are all the more critical in the context of health and healthcare due to their significant personal and societal implications. In this interdisciplinary workshop, we explored how to design and build health systems for diverse populations through the following disciplinary lenses. The Computing Community Consortium (CCC) sponsored a two-day workshop titled Sociotechnical Interventions for Health Disparity Reduction in collaboration with the leadership of the Society for Behavioral Medicine's (SBM) 39th Annual Meeting on Monday, April 9 and Tuesday, April 10, 2018 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The workshop's goal was to bring together leading researchers in computing, health informatics, behavioral medicine, and health disparities to develop an integrative research agenda focused on sociotechnical interventions to reduce health disparities and improve the health of marginalized populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01035 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Extension of the World Health Organization’s model on Health Disparities [77] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Factors to consider when exploring sociotechnical black boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of relationships between individuals/communities, sociobehavioral theory, and technology interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Impact of universal interventions on social inequalities in physical activity among older adults: an equity-focused systematic review

    Lehne G, Bolte G. Impact of universal interventions on social inequalities in physical activity among older adults: an equity-focused systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14: 20

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    When Discrimination Is Baked Into Algorithms

    Kirchner L. When Discrimination Is Baked Into Algorithms. In: The Atlantic [Internet]. 6 Sep 2015 [cited 28 Jul 2018]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ archive/2015/09/discrimination-algorithms-disparate- impact/403969/

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    How Big Data Could Discriminate

    Pearson J. How Big Data Could Discriminate. In: Motherboard [Internet]. 16 Sep 2014 [cited 28 Jul 2018]. Available: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d73x7v/ why-the-federal-trade-commission-thinks-big-data-could- be-discriminatory

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    black box

    Sociotechnical Black Boxes When we develop interventions and applications that change people’s behaviors or outcomes — especially health related upstream or downstream interventions — it is not always clear what part of the intervention, technology, design, community engagement, sociotechnical theory, or person’s current mindset enabled that change. Likew...

  5. [4]

    hypotheses

    Sociotechnical Systems to Inform Theory One of the biggest challenges of developing sociotechnical health interventions is that although there are many sociobehavioral theories available [53], they are often dated because they do not account for new types of sociotechnical systems [10, 50] and are not necessarily representative of marginalized populations...

  6. [5]

    real world

    Multidimensional Evaluation to Reduce Health Disparities at the Population Level The multidisciplinary workshop provided participants with ample time to share experiences designing, implementing, and evaluating studies at various levels of granularity — from individuals to families to communities and, finally, to the population level. Workshop participant...

  7. [6]

    raise all boats

    Interdisciplinary Bridges Many diverse populations are affected by health disparities; thus different, adaptable sociotechnical intervention approaches are necessary to help address the needs of individuals, communities, and populations. Currently, researchers are largely developing separate approaches from scratch and in relative isolation or small inter...

    work page

  8. [7]

    downstream

    The Future of Sociotechnical Systems to Address Health Disparities Studies funded by the National Institutes of Health have been formally investigating how to address health disparities for almost three decades [76]. However, health disparities persist — suggesting the need for fresh approaches. To that end, in this workshop report, we highlight computing...

    work page

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Facial Recognition Is Accurate, if You’re a White Guy

    Lohr S. Facial Recognition Is Accurate, if You’re a White Guy. The New York Times. 9 Feb 2018: B1

    2018

  2. [9]

    Marginalized populations

    Cook KE. Marginalized populations. In: Given LM, editor. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications; 2008. p. 296

    2008

  3. [10]

    Does Technology Have Race? Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’16

    Hankerson D, Marshall AR, Booker J, El Mimouni H, Walker I, Rode JA. Does Technology Have Race? Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’16. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2016. pp. 473–486

    2016

  4. [11]

    Battling algorithmic bias: how do we ensure algorithms treat us fairly? Commun ACM

    Kirkpatrick K. Battling algorithmic bias: how do we ensure algorithms treat us fairly? Commun ACM. 2016;59: 16–17

    2016

  5. [12]

    Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery

    Sweeney L. Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery. Queueing Syst. 2013;11: 10

    2013

  6. [13]

    Local Standards for Anonymization Practices in Health, Wellness, Accessibility, and Aging Research at CHI

    Abbott J, MacLeod H, Nurain N, Essombe Ekobe G, Patil S. Local Standards for Anonymization Practices in Health, Wellness, Accessibility, and Aging Research at CHI. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). New York: ACM; 2019. doi:...

    2019

  7. [14]

    Designing and Evaluating mHealth Interventions for Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review

    Stowell E, Lyson MC, Saksono H, Wurth RC, Jimison H, Pavel M, et al. Designing and Evaluating mHealth Interventions for Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; 2018. p. 15

    2018

  8. [15]

    Mind the theoretical gap: interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research

    Hekler EB, Klasnja P , Froehlich JE, Buman MP . Mind the theoretical gap: interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM

  9. [16]

    Present and Future Trends in Consumer Health Informatics and Patient- Generated Health Data

    Lai AM, Hsueh P-YS, Choi YK, Austin RR. Present and Future Trends in Consumer Health Informatics and Patient- Generated Health Data. Yearb Med Inform. 2017;26: 152–159

    2017

  10. [17]

    Consumer Health Informatics Adoption among Underserved Populations: Thinking beyond the Digital Divide

    Huh J, Koola J, Contreras A, Castillo AK, Ruiz M, Tedone KG, et al. Consumer Health Informatics Adoption among Underserved Populations: Thinking beyond the Digital Divide. Yearb Med Inform. 2018;27: 146–155

    2018

  11. [18]

    The impact of social disadvantage in moderate- to-severe chronic kidney disease: an equity-focused systematic review

    Morton RL, Schlackow I, Mihaylova B, Staplin ND, Gray A, Cass A. The impact of social disadvantage in moderate- to-severe chronic kidney disease: an equity-focused systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016;31: 46–56

    2016

  12. [20]

    Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration

    Welch V, the PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group, Petticrew M, Petkovic J, Moher D, Waters E, et al. Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14. doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0219-2

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Research Opportunities and Visions for Smart RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SOCIOTECHNICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR HEALTH DISPARITY REDUCTION 22 and Pervasive Health [Internet]

    Mynatt E, Hager GD, Kumar S, Lin M, Patel S, Stankovic J, et al. Research Opportunities and Visions for Smart RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SOCIOTECHNICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR HEALTH DISPARITY REDUCTION 22 and Pervasive Health [Internet]. Computing Community Consortium; 2017 Jun. Ava...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Information Technology Research Challenges for Healthcare: From Discovery to Delivery

    Graham S, Estrin D, Horvitz E, Kohane I, Mynatt E, Sim I. Information Technology Research Challenges for Healthcare: From Discovery to Delivery. Workshop Report on Discovery and Innovation in Health IT Workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the Office of the Na...

    2009

  15. [23]

    Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Health Informatics Interventions That Worsen Inequality [Internet]

    Veinot TC, Ancker JS, Lyles C, Parker AG, Siek KA. Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Health Informatics Interventions That Worsen Inequality [Internet]. Workshop on Interactive Systems in Health Care (WISH) 2017; 2017 Nov 4; Washington, DC. Available: http://wish.gatech.edu/wp-c...

    2017

  16. [24]

    What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews

    Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Welch V, Tugwell P . What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67: 190–193

    2013

  17. [25]

    Sexual Orientation Disparities in Preventable Disease: A Fundamental Cause Perspective

    Bränström R, Hatzenbuehler ML, Pachankis JE, Link BG. Sexual Orientation Disparities in Preventable Disease: A Fundamental Cause Perspective. Am J Public Health. 2016;106: 1109–1115

    2016

  18. [26]

    Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities

    Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG. Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Am J Public Health. 2013;103: 813–821

    2013

  19. [27]

    Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health

    Williams DR, Collins C. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep. 2001;116: 404–416

    2001

  20. [28]

    Is Racism a Fundamental Cause of Inequalities in Health? Annu Rev Sociol

    Phelan JC, Link BG. Is Racism a Fundamental Cause of Inequalities in Health? Annu Rev Sociol. 2015;41: 311–330

    2015

  21. [29]

    A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health

    Solar O, Irwin A. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2 (Policy and Practice) [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2017 Aug. Report No.: Paper 2. Available: http://www.who.int/social_determina...

    2017

  22. [30]

    Consumer health informatics: results of a systematic evidence review and evidence based recommendations

    Gibbons MC, Wilson RF, Samal L, Lehmann CU, Dickersin K, Lehmann HP , et al. Consumer health informatics: results of a systematic evidence review and evidence based recommendations. Transl Behav Med. 2011;1: 72–82

    2011

  23. [31]

    The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community

    Thomas SB, Quinn SC. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. Am J Public Health. 1991;81: 1498–1505

    1932

  24. [32]

    Prior experiences of racial discrimination and racial differences in health care system distrust

    Armstrong K, Putt M, Halbert CH, Grande D, Schwartz JS, Liao K, et al. Prior experiences of racial discrimination and racial differences in health care system distrust. Med Care. 2013;51: 144–150

    2013

  25. [33]

    Barriers and drivers of health information technology use for the elderly, chronically ill, and underserved

    Jimison H, Gorman P , Woods S, Nygren P , Walker M, Norris S, et al. Barriers and drivers of health information technology use for the elderly, chronically ill, and underserved. Evid Rep Technol Assess . 2008; 1–1422

    2008

  26. [34]

    The role of trust belief and its antecedents in a community-driven knowledge environment

    Kim B, Han I. The role of trust belief and its antecedents in a community-driven knowledge environment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2009;60: 1012–1026

    2009

  27. [35]

    A question of trust: user-centered design requirements for an informatics intervention to promote the sexual health of African-American youth

    Veinot TC, Campbell TR, Kruger DJ, Grodzinski A. A question of trust: user-centered design requirements for an informatics intervention to promote the sexual health of African-American youth. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20: 758–765

    2013

  28. [36]

    Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations

    Unertl KM, Schaefbauer CL, Campbell TR, Senteio C, Siek KA, Bakken S, et al. Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23: 60–73

    2016

  29. [37]

    Examining participant engagement in an information technology-based physical activity and nutrition intervention for men: the manup randomized controlled trial

    Short CE, Vandelanotte C, Dixon MW, Rosenkranz R, Caperchione C, Hooker C, et al. Examining participant engagement in an information technology-based physical activity and nutrition intervention for men: the manup randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3: e2. 23

    2014

  30. [38]

    Alfonsson S, Olsson E, Hursti T. Motivation and Treatment Credibility Predicts Dropout, Treatment Adherence, and Clinical Outcomes in an Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Relaxation Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18: e52

    2016

  31. [39]

    The Role of Engagement in a Tailored Web- Based Smoking Cessation Program: Randomized Controlled Trial

    Strecher V, McClure J, Alexander G, Chakraborty B, Nair V, Konkel J, et al. The Role of Engagement in a Tailored Web- Based Smoking Cessation Program: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10: e36

    2008

  32. [40]

    Utilization of a Web-based vs integrated phone/Web cessation program among 140,000 tobacco users: an evaluation across 10 free state quitlines

    Nash CM, Vickerman KA, Kellogg ES, Zbikowski SM. Utilization of a Web-based vs integrated phone/Web cessation program among 140,000 tobacco users: an evaluation across 10 free state quitlines. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17: e36

    2015

  33. [41]

    My Child’s Asthma

    Meischke H, Lozano P , Zhou C, Garrison MM, Christakis D. Engagement in “My Child’s Asthma”, an interactive web- based pediatric asthma management intervention. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80: 765–774

    2011

  34. [42]

    Attrition Revisited: Adherence and Retention in a Web-Based Alcohol Trial

    Murray E, White IR, Varagunam M, Godfrey C, Khadjesari Z, McCambridge J. Attrition Revisited: Adherence and Retention in a Web-Based Alcohol Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15: e162

    2013

  35. [43]

    Initial and Sustained Participation in an Internet-delivered Long-term Worksite Health Promotion Program on Physical Activity and Nutrition

    Robroek SJW, Lindeboom DEM, Burdorf A. Initial and Sustained Participation in an Internet-delivered Long-term Worksite Health Promotion Program on Physical Activity and Nutrition. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14: e43

    2012

  36. [44]

    Investigating Predictors of Visiting, Using, and Revisiting an Online Health-Communication Program: A Longitudinal Study

    Van ’t Riet J, Crutzen R, De Vries H. Investigating Predictors of Visiting, Using, and Revisiting an Online Health-Communication Program: A Longitudinal Study. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12: e37

    2010

  37. [45]

    Risk factors for not completing health interventions and the potential impact on health inequalities between educational groups - a mixed method study from Denmark

    Kure-Biegel N, Schnohr CW, Hindhede AL, Diderichsen F. Risk factors for not completing health interventions and the potential impact on health inequalities between educational groups - a mixed method study from Denmark. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15: 54

    2016

  38. [46]

    Urban-Dwelling Community Members’ Views on Biomedical Research Engagement

    Cortés YI, Arcia A, Kearney J, Luchsinger J, Lucero RJ. Urban-Dwelling Community Members’ Views on Biomedical Research Engagement. Qual Health Res. 2017;27: 130–137

    2017

  39. [47]

    A Guide to Using Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) for Researching Distributed Populations

    MacLeod H, Jelen B, Prabhakar A, Oehlberg L, Siek K, Connelly K. A Guide to Using Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) for Researching Distributed Populations. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Pervasive Health and Technology. 2017;3: 152898

    2017

  40. [48]

    The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction

    Hayes GR. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2011;18: 1–20

    2011

  41. [49]

    Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design

    Simonsen J, Robertson T. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge; 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity

    Saxena A. Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2014;11: 76– 85

    2014

  43. [51]

    How to evaluate technologies for health behavior change in HCI research

    Klasnja P , Consolvo S, Pratt W. How to evaluate technologies for health behavior change in HCI research. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’11. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2011. p. 3063

    2011

  44. [52]

    How we design feasibility studies

    Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36: 452–457

    2009

  45. [53]

    Toward Usable Evidence: Optimizing Knowledge Accumulation in HCI Research on Health Behavior Change

    Klasnja P , Hekler EB, Korinek EV, Harlow J, Mishra SR. Toward Usable Evidence: Optimizing Knowledge Accumulation in HCI Research on Health Behavior Change. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’17. New York, New York, USA: ACM Pre...

    2017

  46. [54]

    Accelerating Digital Mental Health Research From Early Design and Creation to Successful Implementation and Sustainment

    Mohr DC, Lyon AR, Lattie EG, Reddy M, Schueller SM. Accelerating Digital Mental Health Research From Early Design and Creation to Successful Implementation and Sustainment. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19: e153

    2017

  47. [55]

    Agile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world

    Hekler EB, Klasnja P , Riley WT, Buman MP , Huberty J, Rivera DE, et al. Agile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world. Transl Behav Med. 2016;6: 317–328

    2016

  48. [56]

    Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality

    Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018; doi:10.1093/jamia/ ocy052

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Hardy J, Veinot TC, Yan X, Berrocal VJ, Clarke P , Goodspeed R, et al. User acceptance of location-tracking technologies RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SOCIOTECHNICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR HEALTH DISPARITY REDUCTION 24 in health research: Implications for study design and data quality....

    2018

  50. [58]

    Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review

    Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs L, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. Taylor & Francis; 2015;9: 323

    2015

  51. [59]

    Socioeconomic status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: a test of the reserve capacity model

    Gallo LC, Bogart LM, Vranceanu A-M, Matthews KA. Socioeconomic status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: a test of the reserve capacity model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;88: 386–399

    2005

  52. [60]

    positive deviants

    Wishik SM, Vynckt S. The use of nutritional “positive deviants” to identify approaches for modification of dietary practices. Am J Public Health. 1976;66: 38–42

    1976

  53. [61]

    Dynamic Models of Behavior for Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions

    Spruijt-Metz D, Nilsen W. Dynamic Models of Behavior for Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2014;13: 13–17

    2014

  54. [62]

    Just-in-time technology to encourage incremental, dietary behavior change

    Intille SS, Kukla C, Farzanfar R, Bakr W. Just-in-time technology to encourage incremental, dietary behavior change. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003; 874

    2003

  55. [63]

    Targeting or Tailoring? Maximizing Resources to Create Effective Health Communications

    Schmid KL, Rivers SE, Latimer AE, Salovey P . Targeting or Tailoring? Maximizing Resources to Create Effective Health Communications. Mark Health Serv. NIH Public Access; 2008;28: 32

    2008

  56. [64]

    Facial-Recognition Software Might Have a Racial Bias Problem

    Clare Garvie JF. Facial-Recognition Software Might Have a Racial Bias Problem. In: The Atlantic [Internet]. 7 Apr 2016 [cited 4 Jul 2018]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/ technology/archive/2016/04/the-underlying-bias-of-facial- recognition-systems/476991/

    2016

  57. [65]

    Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health

    Campbell M. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321: 694–696

    2000

  58. [66]

    The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions

    Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher V. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32: S112–8

    2007

  59. [67]

    Unintended Users, Uses, and Consequences of Mobile Weight Loss Apps: Using Eating Disorders as a Case Study

    Eikey EV. Unintended Users, Uses, and Consequences of Mobile Weight Loss Apps: Using Eating Disorders as a Case Study. In: Sezgin E, Yildirim S, Özkan-Yildirim S, Sumuer E, editors. Current and Emerging mHealth Technologies: Adoption, Implementation, and Use. Cham: Springer In...

    2018

  60. [68]

    Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm : Health and Medicine Division

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm : Health and Medicine Division. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018

    2018

  61. [69]

    [cited 3 Aug 2018]

    App Evaluation Model [Internet]. [cited 3 Aug 2018]. Available: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ mental-health-apps/app-evaluation-model

    2018

  62. [70]

    Schick RS, Kelsey TW, Marston J, Samson K, Humphris GW. MapMySmoke: feasibility of a new quit cigarette smoking mobile phone application using integrated geo- positioning technology, and motivational messaging within a primary care setting. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. BioMe...

    2017

  63. [71]

    A Context-Sensing Mobile Phone App (Q Sense) for Smoking Cessation: A Mixed-Methods Study

    Naughton F, Hopewell S, Lathia N, Schalbroeck R, Brown C, Mascolo C, et al. A Context-Sensing Mobile Phone App (Q Sense) for Smoking Cessation: A Mixed-Methods Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4: e106

    2016

  64. [72]

    A Stress-Free Life: Just-in- Time Interventions for Stress via Real-Time Forecasting and Intervention Adaptation

    Jaimes L, Llofriu M, Raij A. A Stress-Free Life: Just-in- Time Interventions for Stress via Real-Time Forecasting and Intervention Adaptation. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Body Area Networks. 2014. doi:10.4108/icst.bodynets.2014.258237

    2014

  65. [73]

    Mobile Phone Sensor Correlates of Depressive Symptom Severity in Daily-Life Behavior: An Exploratory Study

    Saeb S, Zhang M, Karr CJ, Schueller SM, Corden ME, Kording KP , et al. Mobile Phone Sensor Correlates of Depressive Symptom Severity in Daily-Life Behavior: An Exploratory Study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17: e175

    2015

  66. [74]

    Predicting Negative Emotions Based on Mobile Phone Usage Patterns: An Exploratory Study

    Hung GC-L, Yang P-C, Chang C-C, Chiang J-H, Chen Y-Y. Predicting Negative Emotions Based on Mobile Phone Usage Patterns: An Exploratory Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5: e160

    2016

  67. [75]

    Developing Electronic Health Record (EHR) Strategies Related to Health Center Patients’ Social Determinants of Health

    Gold R, Cottrell E, Bunce A, Middendorf M, Hollombe C, Cowburn S, et al. Developing Electronic Health Record (EHR) Strategies Related to Health Center Patients’ Social Determinants of Health. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30: 428– 447. 25

    2017

  68. [76]

    Integrating Data On Social Determinants Of Health Into Electronic Health Records

    Cantor MN, Thorpe L. Integrating Data On Social Determinants Of Health Into Electronic Health Records. Health Aff . 2018;37: 585–590

    2018

  69. [77]

    Accuracy of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Varies by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Position: A Retrospective Cohort Study

    Dalton JE, Perzynski AT, Zidar DA, Rothberg MB, Coulton CJ, Milinovich AT, et al. Accuracy of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Varies by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Position: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167: 456– 464

    2017

  70. [78]

    Association of Social Determinants With Children’s Hospitals’ Preventable Readmissions Performance

    Sills MR, Hall M, Colvin JD, Macy ML, Cutler GJ, Bettenhausen JL, et al. Association of Social Determinants With Children’s Hospitals’ Preventable Readmissions Performance. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170: 350–358

    2016

  71. [79]

    Participant

    Fiesler C, Proferes N. “Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics. Social Media+ Society. journals. sagepub.com; 2018;4: 1–14

    2018

  72. [80]

    Engaging patient in health and health care processes: the role of patient platforms [Internet]

    Lai C. Engaging patient in health and health care processes: the role of patient platforms [Internet]. tspace. library.utoronto.ca. 2018. Available: https://tspace.library. utoronto.ca/handle/1807/92035

    2018

  73. [81]

    Science Visioning in Minority Health and Health Disparities

    Pérez-Stable EJ, Collins FS. Science Visioning in Minority Health and Health Disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019;109: S5

    2019

  74. [82]

    A New Funding Model for Scientists

    Pain E. A New Funding Model for Scientists. Science. 14 Jan 2015. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1400012

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure

    Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman SN. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. Public Library of Science; 2018;16: e2004089. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN SOCIOTECHNICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR HEALTH DISPARITY REDUCTION 26 First ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.