ReviewDigital health
How is digital health suitability measured for communities? A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Telehealth Versus In-Person Informed Consent: Randomized Study of Comprehension and Decision-Making.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Digital Health Readiness and Medicare Primary Care Spending: Nationwide County-Level Observational Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- A Community-Level Digital Health Readiness Index for the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Most TikTok Videos Regarding the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee Are Posted by Patients and Have Little Educational Value.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The impact of smart healthcare and eldercare on older adults' health and health inequality: Evidence from China.Digital healthArticle
- User perceptions and preferences for GeoHealth tools: A qualitative focus group study of non-expert and expert users.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Digital health services continue growing in usage and popularity, with patients and healthcare organizations benefiting from their use. Despite this, no mechanism exists to measure a patient's and community's suitability to leverage these services. Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the extent and nature of measuring the overall suitability of individuals and communities within the digital health landscape. Methods: Database searches in February 2024 across PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and IEEE Xplore yielded 1044 unique references. Two screening stages resulted in 10 articles that met all evaluation criteria for review inclusion. Results: This systematic review found a gap in the ability to holistically assess a patient's and community's suitability to access digital health services. Myriad indices and tools identify isolated factors contributing to digital health accessibility (e.g., broadband availability); however, no comprehensive mechanism adequately informs providers, policymakers, and researchers. Conclusion: A comprehensive index that accurately reflects suitability for digital health services is needed. Index factors should include a combination of indicators related to socioeconomic status, digital accessibility, such as device and internet access, and social determinants of health. Together, these form the predominant driving factors related to one's ability to participate in digital health 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.