Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35340904›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Digital health for quality healthcare: A systematic mapping of review studies.

Mohd Salami Ibrahim, Harmy Mohamed Yusoff, Yasrul Izad Abu Bakar, Myat Moe Thwe Aung, Mohd Ihsanuddin Abas, Ras Azira Ramli

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07039682 (Developing a Digital-Based Education and Self-Screening Model to Improve Knowledge, Self-Awareness, and HIV Testing Coverage Among Adolescents), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07039682 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Developing a Digital-Based Education and Self-Screening Model to Improve Knowledge, Self-Awareness, and HIV Testing Coverage Among Adolescents

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitas Sebelas MaretRan2025 to 2025Enrolled400ConditionsHuman Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection, HIV Prevention, Adolescent Health, Digital Education InterventionsArmsDigital HIV Education and Self-Screening (EKSTRIM Model)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mohd Salami IbrahimFaculty of Medicine, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5798-7801
Harmy Mohamed YusoffFaculty of Medicine, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Yasrul Izad Abu BakarFaculty of Medicine, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Myat Moe Thwe AungFaculty of Medicine, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Mohd Ihsanuddin AbasFaculty of Medicine, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Ras Azira RamliFaculty of Medicine, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7098-5656

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically catalogue review studies on digital health to establish extent of evidence on quality healthcare and illuminate gaps for new understanding, perspectives and insights for evidence-informed policies and practices. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed database using sensitive search strings. Two reviewers independently conducted two-phase selection via title and abstract, followed by full-text appraisal. Consensuses were derived for any discrepancies. A standardized data extraction tool was used for reliable data mining. Results: A total of 54 reviews from year 2014 to 2021 were included with notable increase in trend of publications. Systematic reviews constituted the majority (61.1%, (37.0% with meta-analyses)) followed by scoping reviews (38.9%). Domains of quality being reviewed include effectiveness (75.9%), accessibility (33.3%), patient safety (31.5%), efficiency (25.9%), patient-centred care (20.4%) and equity (16.7%). Mobile apps and computer-based were the commonest (79.6%) modalities. Strategies for effective intervention via digital health included engineering improved health behaviour (50.0%), better clinical assessment (35.1%), treatment compliance (33.3%) and enhanced coordination of care (24.1%). Psychiatry was the discipline with the most topics being reviewed for digital health (20.3%). Conclusion: Digital health reviews reported findings that were skewed towards improving the effectiveness of intervention via mHealth applications, and predominantly related to mental health and behavioural therapies. There were considerable gaps on review of evidence on digital health for cost efficiency, equitable healthcare and patient-centred care. Future empirical and review studies may investigate the association between fields of practice and tendency to adopt and research the use of digital health to improve care.

Indexed as

Digital healthmHealthquality healthcaresystematic mappingtechnology-enhanced

Identifiers

PMID35340904
PMCPMC8943311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.