Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37490322›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Mapping Factors That Affect the Uptake of Digital Therapeutics Within Health Systems: Scoping Review.

Robin van Kessel, Andres Roman-Urrestarazu, Michael Anderson, Ilias Kyriopoulos, Samantha Field, Giovanni Monti, Shelby D Reed, Milena Pavlova, George Wharton, Elias Mossialos

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
38.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital Therapeutics in China: Comprehensive Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

8 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Robin van Kessel *LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6309-6343
Andres Roman-Urrestarazu *Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2405-9432
Michael AndersonLSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8454-4640
Ilias KyriopoulosLSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3932-8228
Samantha FieldDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-9901-9069
Giovanni MontiLSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-1198-7889
Shelby D ReedDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7654-4464
Milena PavlovaDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6082-8446
George WhartonLSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6544-3636
Elias MossialosLSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8664-9297
London School of Economics and Political Science · GBMaastricht University · NLDuke University · USImperial College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital therapeutics are patient-facing digital health interventions that can significantly alter the health care landscape. Despite digital therapeutics being used to successfully treat a range of conditions, their uptake in health systems remains limited. Understanding the full spectrum of uptake factors is essential to identify ways in which policy makers and providers can facilitate the adoption of effective digital therapeutics within a health system, as well as the steps developers can take to assist in the deployment of products.

objectiveIn this review, we aimed to map the most frequently discussed factors that determine the integration of digital therapeutics into health systems and practical use of digital therapeutics by patients and professionals.

methodsA scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were extracted and synthesized using a thematic analysis.

resultsWe identified 35,541 academic and 221 gray literature reports, with 244 (0.69%) included in the review, covering 35 countries. Overall, 85 factors that can impact the uptake of digital therapeutics were extracted and pooled into 5 categories: policy and system, patient characteristics, properties of digital therapeutics, characteristics of health professionals, and outcomes. The need for a regulatory framework for digital therapeutics was the most stated factor at the policy level. Demographic characteristics formed the most iterated patient-related factor, whereas digital literacy was considered the most important factor for health professionals. Among the properties of digital therapeutics, their interoperability across the broader health system was most emphasized. Finally, the ability to expand access to health care was the most frequently stated outcome measure.

conclusionsThe map of factors developed in this review offers a multistakeholder approach to recognizing the uptake factors of digital therapeutics in the health care pathway and provides an analytical tool for policy makers to assess their health system's readiness for digital therapeutics.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareTelemedicineDatabases, FactualHealth PersonnelHumansTherapeuticsadoptiondigital healthdigital medicinedigital therapeuticsframeworkimplementationpolicyscoping reviewthematic analysisuptake

Identifiers

PMID37490322
PMCPMC10410406
OpenAlexW4385230023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.