Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Meeting Digital Access Halfway: User Insights into Barriers and Enablers of Access to Public Services Cover

Meeting Digital Access Halfway: User Insights into Barriers and Enablers of Access to Public Services

By: Tanja Paneva and  Joze Bencina  
Open Access
|Jun 2025

References

  1. Adeoye-Olatunde, O. A., & Olenik, N. L. (2021). Research and Scholarly Methods: Semi-structured Interviews. JACCP Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 4(10), 1358–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1441
  2. Alsaawi, A. (2014). A Critical Review of Qualitative Interviews. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(4), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819536
  3. Alzahrani, L., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review, 26(1), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.004
  4. Androniceanu, A., & Georgescu, I. (2021). E-Government in European Countries, A comparative approach using the principal components analysis. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0015
  5. Ashik, F. R., Mim, S. A., & Neema, M. N. (2020). Towards vertical spatial equity of urban facilities: An integration of spatial and aspatial accessibility. Journal of Urban Management, 9(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2019.11.004
  6. Asio, J. M. R., Gadia, E., Abarintos, E., Paguio, D., & Bake, M. (2021). Internet Connection and learning device availability of college students: Basis for Institutionalizing flexible learning in the new Normal. Studies in Humanities and Education, 2(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.48185/she.v2il.224
  7. Bekele, W. B., & Ago, F. Y. (2020). Good governance practices and challenges in local government of Ethiopia: the case of Bonga Town Administration. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2(2), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2020.6
  8. Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  10. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
  11. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (201). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
  12. Clifton, J., Fuentes, D. D., & García, G. L. (2019). ICT-enabled co-production of public services: Barriers and enablers. A systematic review. Information Polity, 25(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-190122
  13. Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  15. Debeljak, A., & Dečman, M. (2022). Digital transformation of Slovenian urban municipalities: A quantitative report on the impact of municipality population size on digital maturity. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 15(2), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2022-0012
  16. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., Shafer, S., & Neckerman, K. (2004). From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality. In Social inequality (pp. 355–400). Russell Sage Foundation.
  17. Distel, B. (2020). Assessing citizens’ non-adoption of public e-services in Germany. Information Polity, 25(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-190214
  18. Dobrolyubova, E. (2021). Measuring Outcomes of Digital Transformation in Public Administration: literature review and possible steps forward. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0003
  19. Ebbers, W. E., Jansen, M. G., & Van Deursen, A. J. (2016). Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 685-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.007
  20. European Commission. (2024). Digital Decade 2024: eGovernment Benchmark, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2024-egovernment-benchmark
  21. Eurostat. (2024). E-government activities of individuals via websites. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/isoc_ciegi_ac/default/table?lang=en&category=isoc.isoc_i.isoc_ci_egi
  22. Eynon, R., & Helsper, E. (2010). Adults learning online: Digital choice and/or digital exclusion? New Media & Society, 13(4), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810374789
  23. Faisal, M., Al-Qouz, EE, & and Husain, F. (2016). A direct method for measuring user experience in E-government portals (May 2016), 2016 15th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), Istanbul, Turkey, 2016, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2016.7760706
  24. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
  25. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. BDJ, 204(6), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192
  26. Hargittai, E., Piper, A. M., & Morris, M. R. (2019). From internet access to internet skills: digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(4), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0617-5
  27. Hassan, H., Shehab, E., & Peppard, J. (2011). Recent advances in e-service in the public sector: state-of-the-art and future trends. Business Process Management Journal, 17(3), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151111136405
  28. Haynes, A., & Loblay, V. (2024). Rethinking Barriers and Enablers in Qualitative Health Research: Limitations, Alternatives, and enhancements. Qualitative Health Research, 34(14), 1371–1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241230890
  29. Helsper, E. (2021). The Digital Disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526492982
  30. Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01416.x
  31. Helsper, E. J., & Van Deursen, A. J. a. M. (2016). Do the rich get digitally richer? Quantity and quality of support for digital engagement. Information Communication & Society, 20(5), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2016.1203454
  32. Hernandez, K., & Faith, B. (2023). Online but still falling behind: measuring barriers to internet use ‘after access.’ Internet Policy Review, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.2.1713
  33. Jackson, E. A. (2020). Importance of the public service in achieving the UN SDGS. In Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals (pp. 551-561). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95867-5_20
  34. Keyworth, C., Alzahrani, A., Pointon, L., Hinsby, K., Wainwright, N., Moores, L., Bates, J., & Johnson, J. (2022). Barriers and Enablers to Accessing Support Services Offered by Staff Wellbeing Hubs: A Qualitative Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008913
  35. Kitsing, M. (2017). Internet Banking as a Platform for E-Government. Annual International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IE 2017), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.5176/2251-2039_ie17.30
  36. Kozel, E., & Dečman, M. (2022). The Impact of Trust in Government - Young Voters’ Behavioral Intention to Use i-voting in Slovenia. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 15(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2022-0004
  37. Kumar, R., Sachan, A., Mukherjee, A., & Kumar, R. (2018). Factors Influencing E- Government Adoption in India: A Qualitative Approach. Digital Policy Regulation and Governance, 20(5), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1108/dprg-02-2018-0007
  38. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  39. Lajante, M., Del Prete, M., Sasseville, B., Rouleau, G., Gagnon, M., & Pelletier, N. (2023). Empathy Training for Service Employees: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review. PLoS ONE, 18(8), e0289793. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289793
  40. Lee, Y. (2021). Government for Leaving No One Behind: Social Equity in Public Administration and Trust in Government. SAGE Open, 11(3), 215824402110292. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211029227
  41. Levesque, J., Harris, M. F., & Russell, G. (2013). Patient-centred Access to Health Care: Conceptualising Access at the Interface of Health Systems and Populations. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-12-18
  42. Lindgren, L, Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close Encounters of the Digital Kind: A Research Agenda for the Digitalization of Public Services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
  43. Lo Storto, C. (2016). The Trade-off Between Cost Efficiency and Public Service Quality: A Non-parametric Frontier Analysis of Italian Major Municipalities. Cities, 51,52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/jxities.2015.11.028
  44. Logan, T. M., & Guikema, S. D. (2020). Reframing Resilience: Equitable Access to Essential Services. Risk Analysis, 40(8), 1538–1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13492
  45. McKown, S., Acquadro, C., Anfray, C., Arnold, B., Eremenco, S., Giroudet, C., Martin, M., & Weiss, D. (2020). Good Practices for the Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Linguistic Validation of Clinician-Reported Outcome, Observer-Reported Outcome, and Performance Outcome Measures. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00248-z
  46. Mergel, L, Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining Digital Transformation: Results from Expert Interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
  47. Moore, M. H. (1997). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press.
  48. Moore, M. H. (2019). Reflections on the Public Value Project. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 351–371). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163437-24
  49. Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
  50. Mubarak, F., Suomi, R., & Kantola, S. (2020). Confirming the Links Between Socio-Economic Variables and Digitalization Worldwide: The Unsettled Debate on Digital Divide. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 18(3), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-02-2019-0021
  51. Nikiforova, A., & McBride, K. (2021). Open Government Data Portal Usability: A User- Centred Usability Analysis of 41 Open Government Data Portals. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101539. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101539
  52. Oliver, M. (2013). The Social Model of Disability: Thirty Years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773
  53. Park, S., & Humphry, J. (2019). Exclusion by Design: Intersections of Social, Digital and Data Exclusion. Information Communication & Society, 22(7), 934–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1606266
  54. Penchansky, R., & Thomas, J. W. (1981). The Concept of Access. Medical Care, 19(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001
  55. Peters, K., & Halcomb, E. (2015). Interviews in Qualitative Research. Nurse Researcher, 22(4), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.22.4.6.s2
  56. Ragnedda, M. (2020). Connecting the Digital Underclass. In Springer eBooks (pp. 85–104). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49079-9_5
  57. Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., & Addeo, F. (2022). The Self-reinforcing Effect of Digital and Social Exclusion: The InequalityLoop. Telematics and Informatics, 72, 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101852
  58. Ramesh, R. (2020). How Equal is Access to Public Services? The Impact of Sociodemographic Background on Public Service Delivery in Sri Lanka. Journal of Developing Societies, 37(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796x20970882
  59. Plata, J. A. R., & Pérez, M. C. G. (2019). Access to Basic Services: From Public Benefit Practice to a Sustainable Development Approach. In Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71061-7_80-l
  60. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831,2003.tb00133.x
  61. Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. ). (2015). Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter. Information Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2015.1012532
  62. Salemink, K., Strijker, D., & Bosworth, G. (2015). Rural Development in the Digital Age: A Systematic Literature Review on Unequal ICT Availability, Adoption, and Use in Rural Areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 360-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001
  63. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring its Conceptualization and Operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
  64. Saunders, M. R., Lee, H., Maene, C., Schuble, T., & Cagney, K. A. (2014). Proximity Does not Equal Access: Racial Disparities in Access to High Quality Dialysis Facilities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 1(4), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-014-0036-0
  65. Saurman, E. (2016). Improving Access: Modifying Penchansky and Thomas’s Theory of Access. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 21(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819615600001
  66. Small, M. L., & Cook,). M. (2021). Using Interviews to Understand Why: Challenges and Strategies in the Study of Motivated Action. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(4), 1591-1631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995552
  67. Smith, J. A. (2016). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Getting at lived experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 303-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262622
  68. Swain, J. (2018). A Hybrid Approach to Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research: Using a Practical Example. In SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435477
  69. Taipale, S. (2013). The Use of E-Government Services and the Internet: The Role of Aocio-demographic, Economic and Geographical Predictors. Telecommunications Policy, 37(4-5), 413–422. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.05.005
  70. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. (No. 42809, 1–13). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3923923?v=pdf
  71. United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework. (2019). United Nations Sustainable Development Group, https://unsdg.un.org/resources/united-nations-sustainable-development-cooperation-framework-guidance
  72. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly. (1948). https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  73. Van De Walle, S., Zeibote, Z., Stacenko, S., Muravska, T., & Migchelbrink, K. (2018). Explaining Non-adoption of Electronic Government Services by Citizens: A Study among Non-users of Public e-Services in Latvia. Information Polity, 23(4), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-170069
  74. Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2013). The Digital Divide Shifts to Differences in Usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959
  75. Van Deursen, A., Helsper, E., Eynon, R., & Van Dijk, J. (2017). The Compoundness and Sequentiality of Digital Inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11, 452–473.
  76. Van Dijk, J. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812
  77. Van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide.
  78. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Digital Divide: Impact of Access. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043
  79. Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487
  80. Van Winkle, B., Carpenter, N., & Moscucci, M. (2017). Why Aren’t Our Digital Solutions Working for Everyone? The AMA Journal of Ethic, 19(11), 1116–1124. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas2-1711
  81. Warren, M. (2007). The Digital Vicious Cycle: Links Between Social Disadvantage and Digital Exclusion in Rural Areas. Telecommunications Policy, 31(6–7), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.001
  82. Wei, Z., & Mukherjee, S. (2024). An Integrated Approach to Analyze Equitable Access to Food Stores under Disasters from Human Mobility Patterns. Risk Analysis, 45(2), 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.16873
  83. Wiewiora, A., Keast, R., & Brown, K. (2015). Opportunities and Challenges in Engaging Citizens in the Co-Production of Infrastructure-Based Public Services in Australia. Public Management Review, 18(4), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.999820
Language: English
Page range: 134 - 162
Published on: Jun 11, 2025
Published by: NISPAcee
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2025 Tanja Paneva, Joze Bencina, published by NISPAcee
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.