BackgroundeHealth is developing rapidly and brings with it a promise to reduce social health inequalities (SHIs). Yet, it appears that it also has the potential to increase them.ObjectivesThe general objective of this review was to set out how to ensure that eHealth contributes to reducing SHIs rather than exacerbating them. This review has three objectives: (1) identifying characteristics of people at risk of experiencing social inequality in health; (2) determining the possibilities of developing eHealth tools that avoid increasing SHI; and (3) modeling the process of using an eHealth tool by people vulnerable to SHI.MethodsFollowing the EPPI approach (Evidence for Policy and Practice of Information of the Institute of Education at the University of London), two databases were searched for the terms SHIs and eHealth and their derivatives in titles and abstracts. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed articles were included and evaluated. The software NVivo (QSR International) was employed to extract the data and allow for a metasynthesis of the data.ResultsOf the 73 articles retained, 10 were theoretical, 7 were from reviews, and 56 were based on empirical studies. Of the latter, 40 used a quantitative approach, 8 used a qualitative approach, 4 used mixed methods approach, and only 4 were based on participatory research-action approach. The digital divide in eHealth is a serious barrier and contributes greatly to SHI. Ethnicity and low income are the most commonly used characteristics to identify people at risk of SHI. The most promising actions for reducing SHI via eHealth are to aim for universal access to the tool of eHealth, become aware of users’ literacy level, create eHealth tools that respect the cultural attributes of future users, and encourage the participation of people at risk of SHI.ConclusionseHealth has the potential to widen the gulf between those at risk of SHI and the rest of the population. The widespread expansion of eHealth technologies calls for rigorous consideration of interventions, which are not likely to exacerbate SHI.

Background eHealth can help reduce social health inequalities (SHIs); at the same time, it also has the potential to increase them. Several conversion factors can be integrated into the development of an eHealth tool to make it inclusive: (1) providing physical, technical, and financial access to eHealth; (2) enabling the integration of people at risk of SHIs into the research and development of digital projects targeting such populations (co-design or participatory research); (3) promoting consistency between the digital health literacy level of future users (FUs) and the eHealth tool; (4) developing an eHealth tool that is consistent with the technological skills of FUs; (5) ensuring that the eHealth tool is consistent with the help-seeking process of FUs; (6) respecting the learning capacities of FUs; and (7) being sensitive to FUs’ cultural context. However, only little empirical evidence pointing out how these conversion factors can be integrated into an effective eHealth tool is available. Objective On the basis of Amartya Sen’s theoretical framework of social justice, the objective of this study was to explore how these 7 conversion factors can be integrated into an eHealth tool for caregivers of functionally dependent older persons. Methods This study was based on a social justice design and participant observation as part of a large-scale research project funded by the Ministère de la Famille through the Quebec Ami des Aînés Program. Data were collected by recording the preparation sessions, the co-design and advisory committee sessions, as well as the debriefing sessions. The results were analyzed using Miles and Huberman’s method. Results A total of 78 co-designers participated in 11 co-design sessions, 24 preparation sessions, and 11 debriefing sessions. Of the 7 conversion factors, 5 could be explored in this experiment. The integration of conversion factors has been uneven. The participation of FUs in the development of the tool supports other conversion factors. Respecting the eHealth literacy level of FUs means that their learning abilities and technological skills are also respected because they are closely related to one another and are therefore practically difficult to be distinguished. Conclusions Conversion factors can be integrated into the development of eHealth tools that are intended to be inclusive and contribute to curbing SHIs by integrating FU participation into the tool design process.

This article provides a synthesis of the literature published from 1990 to 2000 on college students with learning disabilities and writing difficulties (LD/WD). Thirty-eight articles met the criteria for describing writing difficulties in this cohort of students. Upon reviewing the articles, four major topics emerged: (a) assistive technology for college students with LD/WD; (b) effectiveness of assistive technology for college students with LD/WD; (c) characteristics and error patterns in the writings of college students with LD/WD; and (d) instructional support and methods. The review of the literature shows that there is an urgent need for empirical studies, especially on instructional methods and strategies. Recommendations for future research are presented.

Various important biological pathways are modulated by TGFb isoforms; as such they are potential targets for therapeutic intervention. Fresolimumab, also known as GC1008, is a pan-TGFb neutralizing antibody that has been tested clinically for several indications including an ongoing trial for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. The structure of the antigen-binding fragment of fresolimumab (GC1008 Fab) in complex with TGFb3 has been reported previously, but the structural capacity of fresolimumab to accommodate tight interactions with TGFb1 and TGFb2 was insufficiently understood. We report the crystal structure of the single-chain variable fragment of fresolimumab (GC1008 scFv) in complex with target TGFb1 to a resolution of 3.00 Å and the crystal structure of GC1008 Fab in complex with TGFb2 to 2.83 Å . The structures provide further insight into the details of TGFb recognition by fresolimumab, give a clear indication of the determinants of fresolimumab pan-specificity and provide potential starting points for the development of isoformspecific antibodies using a fresolimumab scaffold.

Background eHealth can help reduce social health inequalities (SHIs) as much as it can exacerbate them. Taking a co-design approach to the development of eHealth tools has the potential to ensure that these tools are inclusive. Although the importance of involving future users in the development of eHealth tools to reduce SHIs is highlighted in the scientific literature, the challenges associated with their participation question the benefits of this involvement as co-designers in a real-world context. Objective On the basis of Amartya Sen’s theoretical framework of social justice, the aim of this study is to explore how co-design can support the development of an inclusive eHealth tool for caregivers of functionally dependent older persons. Methods This study is based on a social justice design and participant observation as part of a large-scale research project funded by the Ministry of Families as part of the Age-Friendly Quebec Program (Québec Ami des Aînés). The analysis was based on the method developed by Miles and Huberman and on Paillé’s analytical questioning method. Results A total of 78 people participated in 11 co-design sessions in 11 Quebec regions. A total of 24 preparatory meetings and 11 debriefing sessions were required to complete this process. Co-designers participated in the creation of a prototype to support the search for formal services for caregivers. The majority of participants (except for 2) significantly contributed to the tool’s designing. They also incorporated conversion factors to ensure the inclusiveness of the eHealth tool, such as an adequate level of digital literacy and respect for the caregiver’s help-seeking process. In the course of the experiment, the research team’s position regarding its role in co-design evolved from a neutral posture and promoting co-designer participation to one that was more pragmatic. Conclusions The use of co-design involving participants at risk of SHIs does not guarantee innovation, but it does guarantee that the tool developed will comply with their process of help-seeking and their literacy level. Time issues interfere with efforts to carry out a democratic process in its ideal form. It would be useful to single out some key issues to guide researchers on what should be addressed in co-design discussions and what can be left out to make optimal use of this approach in a real-world context.