ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
A systematic review on patient and public attitudes toward health monitoring technologies across countries.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. 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.
- Technology-Enhanced Exercise Training for Cardiometabolic Syndrome: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Balancing ideals and realities: health care professionals' perspectives of and attitudes toward digital patient-centered cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Beyond Diagnosis: Aerosol Viral Monitoring to Transform Epidemic Responses.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- Integrating remote blood pressure monitoring into NHS primary care: a human factors perspective.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Monitoring Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Digital Technologies: The Emerging Role of Smartwatches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
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
The market for digital health monitoring is expanding rapidly, with technologies that track health information and provide access to medical data promising benefits for users, particularly in areas with limited healthcare resources. To understand user attitudes toward these technologies, we conducted a systematic review of literature with primary data about patient and public perspectives. We synthesized 562 studies (2000-2023) from PubMed, Embase, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Scopus, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research. We revealed a significant geographic bias, with most research concentrated in few countries, and identified access gaps in both Global South and Global North. While users generally showed positive attitudes toward health monitoring technologies, they expressed various concerns. We provide suggestions for future research to enhance the socially responsible integration of technology in healthcare. One important limitation of our approach is using English-language search terms. This potentially excluded relevant studies from underrepresented countries.
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.