Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38046643›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2023

Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners.

Patrick J Fitzpatrick

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 214 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
214citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

214 citing papers in PubMed, 8 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. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. 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
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

154 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

1 author.

Patrick J FitzpatrickEducate4Health, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital communication tools have demonstrated significant potential to improve health literacy which ultimately leads to better health outcomes. In this article, we examine the power of digital communication tools such as mobile health apps, telemedicine and online health information resources to promote health and digital literacy. We outline evidence that digital tools facilitate patient education, self-management and empowerment possibilities. In addition, digital technology is optimising the potential for improved clinical decision-making, treatment options and communication among providers. We also explore the challenges and limitations associated with digital health literacy, including issues related to access, reliability and privacy. We propose leveraging digital communication tools is key to optimising engagement to enhance health literacy across demographics leading to transformation of healthcare delivery and driving better outcomes for all.

Indexed as

AI in healthcareclinical decision support systems (CDSS)digital communications in healthcaredigital health governancedigital health regulationhealth inequities and inclusionhealth literacy (HL)

Identifiers

PMID38046643
PMCPMC10693297

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.