ArticleGlobal health research and policy2025
Cultural adaptation of digital healthcare tools: a cross-sectional survey of caregivers and patients.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on cardiovascular disease patients' experiences using digital health tools.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- An LLM chatbot to facilitate primary-to-specialist care transitions: a randomized controlled trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Data-driven identification of hub chains in disease accruals to reduce healthcare utilization and costs.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- A community-codesigned LLM-powered chatbot for primary care: a randomized controlled trial.Nature health · 2026Article
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
backgroundOptimizing the cultural accessibility of digital healthcare tools requires understanding user perspectives on usability features and cultural appropriateness.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of 3,030 caregivers (mean age 44.0, 52.9% female) and 2,108 inpatients (mean age 49.7, 54.0% female) at a Guangxi medical center (July-October 2024) assessed experiences with digital tools, support needs, and preferences for culturally adaptive features.
resultsCaregivers reported a higher adoption of digital tools than patients (caregivers: 87.1% vs. patients: 62.0%, P-value < .001), yet 81.1% of caregivers reported unmet needs. Both groups (caregivers: 67.0%; patients: 64.0%) prioritized integrating traditional medicine over other cultural factors (language diversity, traditional medicine, folk customs, and medical resource availability). Caregivers valued interactive health management tools (73.3% vs. 66.7% among patients, P-value < .001) and user feedback mechanisms (61.2% vs. 55.0% among patients, P-value < .001) more than patients.
conclusionsDespite high adoption, caregivers report significant gaps in culturally relevant support. Digital health interventions should prioritize user-centered designs, incorporating traditional medicine and addressing the divergent preferences of caregivers and patients.
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.