Table 2.

Characteristics of the commentaries and editorials.

Author, year, and country	Context	Aim of paper
Nouri et al [22], 2020, United States	Commentary emerging from practice, by clinicians at an academic medical center in San Francisco with 3 clinics including an urban “safety-net” service	Discussion of challenges encountered in ensuring equitable access to telemedicine in the early weeks of the pandemic
Ramsetty and Adams [63], 2020, United States	Editorial by directors of free CARESa clinics in South Carolina	To discuss disparities in access to telemedicine among vulnerable patients and evaluate why patients could not access the web-based system at CARES clinics
Mehmi et al [64], 2020, United Kingdom	Commentary on 2 articles, one arguing for the benefits of video consultations and one about health inequalities exposed by the pandemic	Authors criticize a BMJ article for failing to address digital disparities, notably relating to lack of effective internet access in some geographical areas, digital poverty (inability to afford a device or adequate data package), poor digital skills and confidence, refugee and other uncertain citizenship status, and lack of space and privacy at home
Thronson et al [65], 2020, United States	Commentary on an empirical audit showing that the pandemic led to fewer primary care encounters overall and many more conducted remotely	Authors comment that the empirical study failed to capture a key finding from their own clinical experience (supported by audit data): that web-based visits (by video) were rarely taken up by the homeless, limited-English speakers, and those in a “racially diverse safety-net population”
Ramasawmy et al [66], 2021, United Kingdom	Commentary on how the move to digital could increase many well-documented inequities	Summarizes the literature on health inequities, including key reports from the past; warns that these inequities could increase with “digital first” policies; and highlights areas in which existing knowledge and evidence might be translated into cross-sectoral action
Gray et al [67], 2020, United States	Editorial from the Department of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University	To explore the strategies for digital care of vulnerable patients in a COVID-19 world; recommends 5 key strategies to prevent losing touch with vulnerable patients who are alienated by the digital divide
Crawford and Serhal [21], 2020, United States	Commentary summarizing existing literature and offering a new framework	Authors introduce the Digital Health Equity Framework to identify the digital determinants of health and their links to digital health equity; aim is to establish systematic ways to ensure that health inequities are identified and addressed in digital health policies and programs
Rodriguez et al [11], 2020, United States	Opinion piece on digital health equity	To discuss views on how the digital divide should be considered in the implementation of recent policy (21st Century Cures Act)
Eruchalu et al [68], 2021, United States	Commentary emerging from practice (New York City)	To discuss concerns about inequities in digital health access
Gallegos-Rejas et al [69], 2022, Australia	Article proposing a series of practical steps to improve access to telehealth services	Summarizes selected strategies to improve equity of access to telehealth for stakeholder groups: consumers (patients and carers), consumer advocacy groups, health service staff (clinicians), health services (providers), policy makers, funders, and researchers

^aCARES: Community Aid, Relief, Education, and Support.