ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024
Sync fast and solve things-best practices for responsible digital health.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Digital Healthcare Better Than None? The Digital Health Technology Dilemma in Low-Income Countries.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Co-creation as a knowledge mobilization process in digital health regulation in East Africa: The making of the DigiReg compass.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Mapping AI startup investment and innovation in healthcare using a five-tier AI systems complexity framework.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on digital biomarkers for monitoring inflammatory arthritis: insights from a qualitative study rooted in design thinking.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Shaping the Future of AI in Organ Transplantation: Position Paper of the European Society for Organ Transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Operationalizing AI ethics in medicine-a co-creation workshop study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Caregiver experiences of an integrative patient-centered digital health application for pediatric type 1 diabetes care: Findings from a pilot clinical trial.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Fostering inclusive co-creation in digital health.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Expert and Interdisciplinary Analysis of AI-Driven Chatbots for Mental Health Support: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- What makes clinical machine learning fair? A practical ethics framework.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- A scoping review of ethical aspects of public-private partnerships in digital health.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design of digital health regulatory frameworks: insights from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.Oxford open digital health · 2025Article
- Between willingness and practice: a nationwide survey of 1,334 German patient organization members on user involvement in digital service development.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- An umbrella review on how digital health intervention co-design is conducted and described.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- The case for inclusive co-creation in digital health innovation.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Digital Twins in Translational Research and Health Care: An Anthropological Perspective.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital health innovation is expected to transform healthcare, but it also generates ethical and societal concerns, such as privacy risks, and biases that can compound existing health inequalities. While such concerns are widely recognized, existing regulatory principles, oversight methods and ethical frameworks seem out of sync with digital health innovation. New governance and innovation best practices are thus needed to bring such principles to bear with the reality of business, innovation, and regulation.To grant practical insight into best practices for responsible digital health innovation, we conducted a qualitative study based on an interactive engagement methodology. We engaged key stakeholders (n = 46) operating at the translational frontier of digital health. This approach allowed us to identify three clusters of governance and innovation best practices in digital health innovation: i) inclusive co-creation, ii) responsive regulation, and iii) value-driven innovation. Our study shows that realizing responsible digital health requires diverse stakeholders' commitment to adapt innovation and regulation practices, embracing co-creation as the default modus operandi for digital health development. We describe these collaborative practices and show how they can ensure that innovation is neither slowed by overregulation, nor leads to unethical outcomes.
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.