Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37384154›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Patients' perspectives on digital health tools.

Samaneh Madanian, Ivana Nakarada-Kordic, Stephen Reay, T'heniel Chetty

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Effect of a digital tool on breast cancer specific health-related quality of life and psychological distress: secondary results from the ADAPT study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Factors associated with distress over time in women with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy: insights from a pilot study assessing a digital information tool.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Evaluating a digital tool for supporting people affected by breast cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial-the ADAPT study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Exploring young adult cancer survivors' perspectives on generative AI chatbots for symptom support.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Samaneh MadanianDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Science, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), 6 St. Paul Street, AUT WZ Building, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
Ivana Nakarada-KordicGood Health Design, School of Art and Design, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), 27 St. Paul Street, AUT WE Building, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
Stephen ReayGood Health Design, School of Art and Design, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), 27 St. Paul Street, AUT WE Building, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
T'heniel ChettyGood Health Design, School of Art and Design, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), 27 St. Paul Street, AUT WE Building, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Digital technology has changed the way healthcare is delivered and accessed. However, the focus is mostly on technology and clinical aspects. This review aimed to integrate and critically analyse the available knowledge regarding patients' perspectives on digital health tools and identify facilitators and barriers to their uptake. Methods: A narrative review was conducted using the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Information related to facilitators and barriers to uptake was synthesised and interpreted using thematic and content analyses, respectively. Results: Seventy-one out of 1722 articles identified were eligible for inclusion. Patient empowerment, self-management, and personalisation were identified as the main factors that contributed to patient uptake in using digital health tools. Digital literacy, health literacy, and privacy concerns were identified as barriers to the uptake of digital health technology. Conclusion: Digital health technologies have changed the way healthcare is experienced by patients. Research highlights the disconnect between the development and implementation of digital health tools and the patients they are created for. This review may serve as the foundation for future research incorporating patients' perspectives to help increase patients' engagement with emerging technologies. Innovation: Participatory design approaches have the potential to support the creation of patient-centred digital health tools.

Indexed as

Digital healthDigital health technologiesMobile healthPatient-centered careTelehealthTelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID37384154
PMCPMC10294099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.