Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38393771›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2024

Ethical and Quality of Care-Related Challenges of Digital Health Twins in Older Care Settings: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

Md Shafiqur Rahman Jabin, Emillia Vann Yaroson, Adaobi Ilodibe, Tillal Eldabi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A survey on ethical digital twins in healthcare.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Md Shafiqur Rahman JabinDepartment of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-8716
Emillia Vann YarosonDepartment of Operations and Analytics, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1780-3566
Adaobi IlodibeDepartment of Applied Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1471-4509
Tillal EldabiFaculty of Management, Law & Social Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-4075
University of Bradford · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health twins (DHTs) have been evolving with their diverse applications in medicine, specifically in older care settings, with the increasing demands of older adults. DHTs have already contributed to improving the quality of dementia and trauma care, cardiac treatment, and health care services for older individuals. Despite its many benefits, the optimum implementation of DHTs has faced several challenges associated with ethical issues, quality of care, management and leadership, and design considerations in older care settings. Since the need for such care is continuously rising and there is evident potential for DHTs to meet those needs, this review aims to map key concepts to address the gaps in the research knowledge to improve DHT implementation.

objectiveThe review aims to compile and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the problems encountered by older adults and care providers associated with the application of DHTs. The synthesis will collate the evidence of the issues associated with quality of care, the ethical implications of DHTs, and the strategies undertaken to overcome those challenges in older care settings.

methodsThe review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The published studies will be searched through CINAHL, MEDLINE, JBI, and Web of Science, and the unpublished studies through Mednar, Trove, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. Studies published in English from 2002 will be considered. This review will include studies of older individuals (aged 65 years or older) undergoing care delivery associated with DHTs and their respective care providers. The concept will include the application of the technology, and the context will involve studies based on the older care setting. A broad scope of evidence, including quantitative, qualitative, text and opinion studies, will be considered. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and then review the full text. Data will be extracted from the included studies using a data extraction tool developed for this study.

resultsThe results will be presented in a PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) flow diagram. A draft charting table will be developed as a data extraction tool. The results will be presented as a "map" of the data in a logical, diagrammatic, or tabular form in a descriptive format.

conclusionsThe evidence synthesis is expected to uncover the shreds of evidence required to address the ethical and care quality-related challenges associated with applying DHTs. A synthesis of various strategies used to overcome identified challenges will provide more prospects for adopting them elsewhere and create a resource allocation model for older individuals. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51153.

Indexed as

accessibilitydata securityeffectivenessequalityhealth equitypatient safetyright to privacysocial care

Identifiers

PMID38393771
PMCPMC10924255
OpenAlexW4389689889

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.