ReviewFrontiers in digital health2024
Practical guidelines for developing digital health solutions to increase equity in dementia care in the UK.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based care pathways for people with dementia and neurodegenerative disorders in Europe: a systematic review of models, integration of digital technologies, and quality indicators.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Positioning equity at the core of European dementia research: a pan-European co-produced perspective from the PANEUCARE consortium.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Recommendations for the development and use of technology to support people living with dementia and caregivers: A Delphi study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Editorial: Neurocognitive disorders in the community: a global perspective.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Article
- Practical guidelines for developing digital health solutions to increase equity in dementia care in the UK.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital Healthcare Solutions (DHS) are transforming healthcare by improving patients' experiences, safety and quality of care. However, despite all the proposed and observed advantages of DHS, a growing body of research suggests that these DHS are not equally accessible to all. This research aimed to assess whether equity frameworks for digital health solutions can be used to guide the development of digital health solutions to increase access to care for dementia patients in the UK and, thereafter, develop practical guidelines to guide the design of equitable DHS products to address this growing issue. Methods: A scoping review across four databases and grey literature was done to identify equity frameworks and design principles for DHS. The equity frameworks and design principles were analyzed to make recommendations on increasing equity in the product. Results: 34 publications and reports met the inclusion criteria. Four equity frameworks were analyzed and one was selected. Equitable product development guidelines were created based on patient-centered design principles. Conclusion: Although DHS can increase inequity in healthcare, concrete methods and practical guidelines can minimize this if DHS developers design for maximum equity and closely collaborate with healthcare providers and end-users in product development. Future research could use these guidelines to test usability for developers and investigate other equitable approaches like institutional barriers to adoption.
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.