Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36124659›Full record

ReviewEpidemiologic reviews2022

Addressing Health Inequities in Digital Clinical Trials: A Review of Challenges and Solutions From the Field of HIV Research.

Andrea L Wirtz, Carmen H Logie, Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemiologic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Optimizing participation in digital health studies: understanding appointment attendance.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Stigma, social and structural vulnerability, and mental health among transgender women: A partial least square path modeling analysis.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea L Wirtz
Carmen H Logie
Lawrence Mbuagbaw
Johns Hopkins University · USMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Anna Palmer Durbin · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
LITE CONNECT: Addressing testing gaps and epidemiologic disparities of COVID-19 amongtransgender people in the United StatesUH3AI133669 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI REISNER, SARI, WIRTZ, ANDREA L · 2019 to 2022
$6.9M
American Cohort to Study HIV Acquisition among Transgender Women in High Risk AreasUG3AI133669 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI REISNER, SARI, WIRTZ, ANDREA L · 2017 to 2018
$3.5M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIAID NIH HHS UG3 AI133669NIAID NIH HHS UH3 AI133669
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard for establishing efficacy of health interventions, thus determining which interventions are brought to scale in health care and public health programs. Digital clinical trials, broadly defined as trials that have partial to full integration of technology across implementation, interventions, and/or data collection, are valued for increased efficiencies as well as testing of digitally delivered interventions. Although recent reviews have described the advantages and disadvantages of and provided recommendations for improving scientific rigor in the conduct of digital clinical trials, few to none have investigated how digital clinical trials address the digital divide, whether they are equitably accessible, and if trial outcomes are potentially beneficial only to those with optimal and consistent access to technology. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), among other health conditions, disproportionately affects socially and economically marginalized populations, raising questions of whether interventions found to be efficacious in digital clinical trials and subsequently brought to scale will sufficiently and consistently reach and provide benefit to these populations. We reviewed examples from HIV research from across geographic settings to describe how digital clinical trials can either reproduce or mitigate health inequities via the design and implementation of the digital clinical trials and, ultimately, the programs that result. We discuss how digital clinical trials can be intentionally designed to prevent inequities, monitor ongoing access and utilization, and assess for differential impacts among subgroups with diverse technology access and use. These findings can be generalized to many other health fields and are practical considerations for donors, investigators, reviewers, and ethics committees engaged in digital clinical trials.

Indexed as

HIVHIV InfectionsData CollectionDelivery of Health CareHealth InequitiesHumansclinical trialdigitaldigital interventionHIVtechnology

Identifiers

PMID36124659
PMCPMC10362940
OpenAlexW4296483166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.