ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Development and Evaluation of eHealth Services Regarding Accessibility: Scoping Literature Review.
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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Inequalities in the Use of eHealth Services in European Public Health Care Systems: Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Accessibility of Digital Financial Applications for People With Visual Impairment: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Qualitative exploration of consumers' experiences and perceptions of telehealth for allied health services in Australia.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Accessibility of eHealth Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among People With and People Without Impairment: Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- IRT analysis of the BDI-II for early online depression detection: validation in a Mexican population.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Evaluating accessibility of e-health websites in Indonesia: Bridging the digital divide for people with disabilities.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Capturing Usability Problems for People Living With Dementia by Applying the DEMIGNED Principles in Usability Evaluation Methods: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Methods, Indicators, and End-User Involvement in the Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions for the Public: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccessibility is acknowledged as a key to inclusion in the Convention of Rights for People with Disabilities. An inaccessible design can result in exclusion from eHealth and cause disability among people who have impairments.
objectiveThis scoping literature review aimed to investigate how eHealth services have been developed and evaluated regarding accessibility for people with impairments.
methodsIn line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping studies and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a search in 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, IEEE, and Web of Science) in October 2020 and an update of the search in June 2022. The search strategy was structured according to the PICO model as follows: Population/Problem, digital accessibility for users with impairment; Intervention, health care delivered by any digital solution; Comparison, not applicable; Outcome, use of and adherence to (1) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), (2) other accessibility guidelines, and (3) other means, for designing or evaluating accessibility in eHealth services. A Boolean search was conducted by combining terms related to accessibility and eHealth. All authors participated in screening abstracts according to the eligibility criteria. Each publication, containing a potentially relevant abstract, was read (full text) and assessed for eligibility by 2 authors independently and pairwise. Publications deemed eligible were read by all authors and discussed for consensus.
resultsA total of 8643 publications were identified. After abstract screening, 131 publications remained for full-text reading. Of those, 116 publications were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Fifteen publications involving studies of 12 eHealth services were included in the study. Of the 15 publications, 2 provided a definition of accessibility, 5 provided an explanation of accessibility, and 8 did not provide any explanation. Five publications used the WCAG to evaluate accessibility when developing eHealth services. One publication used International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 29138, ISO 2941, and ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 30071-1 standards together with the Spanish Association for Standardization (UNE) 139803 standard. Eleven publications used other means to address accessibility, including text-level grading; literature review about accessibility; user tests, focus groups, interviews, and design workshops with target groups of patients, relatives, and health care professionals; and comparative analysis of existing technical solutions to provide information about useful requirements.
conclusionsAlthough a clear definition of accessibility can enhance operationalization and thus measurability when evaluating accessibility in eHealth services, accessibility was insufficiently defined in most of the included studies. Further, accessibility guidelines and standards were used to a very limited extent in the development and evaluation of eHealth services. Guidelines for developing complex interventions that include guidance for accessibility are motivated to ensure that accessibility will be considered systematically in eHealth services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.