ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
From Theory to Practice: Viewpoint on Economic Indicators for Trust in Digital Health.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the S-TIMHSS: a quality metric to inform and evaluate interventions to (re)build trust.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Trust Performance Indicators and Trust Stress Tests: A Conceptual Proposition for Trustworthy Health Data Spaces.International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Trust transfer in digital healthcare: The role of self-service systems in reducing patient treatment barriers.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
User trust is pivotal for the adoption of digital health systems interventions (DHI). In response, numerous trust-building guidelines have recently emerged targeting DHIs such as artificial intelligence. The common aim of these guidelines aimed at private sector actors and government policy makers is to build trustworthy DHI. While these guidelines provide some indication of what trustworthiness is, the guidelines typically only define trust and trustworthiness in broad terms, they rarely offer guidance about economic considerations that would allow implementers to measure and balance trade-offs between costs and benefits. These considerations are important when deciding how best to allocate scarce resources (eg, financial capital, workforce, or time). The missing focus on economics undermines the potential usefulness of such guidelines. We propose the development of actionable trust-performance-indicators (including but not limited to surveys) to gather evidence on the cost-effectiveness of trust-building principles as a crucial step for successful implementation. Furthermore, we offer guidance on navigating the conceptual complexity surrounding trust and on how to sharpen the trust discourse. Successful implementation of economic considerations is critical to successfully build user trust in DHI.
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.