Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39553827›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2024

Development of an evidence- and consensus-based Digital Healthcare Equity Framework.

Elham Hatef, Sarah Hudson Scholle, Bryan Buckley, Jonathan P Weiner, John Matthew Austin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Elham HatefDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Sarah Hudson ScholleNational Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC 20005, United States.
Bryan BuckleyNational Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC 20005, United States.
Jonathan P WeinerCenter for Population Health Information Technology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
John Matthew AustinJohns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To develop an evidence- and consensus-based Digital Healthcare Equity Framework (the Framework) that guides users in intentionally considering equity in healthcare solutions that involve digital technologies. Materials and Methods: We conducted an environmental scan including a scoping review of the literature and key informant interviews with health equity and digital healthcare technology thought leaders and convened a technical expert panel (TEP). Results: We grouped similar concepts from the scoping review and key informant interviews, synthesized them into several primary domains and subdomains, and presented the composite list of domains and subdomains to the TEP for their input. From those, we derived the following domains for the Framework: (1) Patient and Community Characteristics, (2) Health System Characteristics, and (3) Health Information Technology Characteristics. We structured the Framework around the following 5 phases of the digital healthcare lifecycle: planning, development, acquisition, implementation/maintenance, and monitoring/improvement/equity assessment. Discussion: The proposed Framework is designed to specify the aspects that need to be considered in a systematic and intentional approach to ensure digital healthcare solutions improve, and not exacerbate, healthcare inequities. Conclusion: The proposed Framework serves as a tool to help users and other stakeholders assess whether their healthcare solutions that involve digital technologies are equitable at every phase of the digital healthcare lifecycle.

Indexed as

consensus-based frameworkDigital HealthcareHealth Equity

Identifiers

PMID39553827
PMCPMC11565864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.