Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41150865›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2025

Ethical and Quality of Care-Related Challenges of Digital Health Twins in Care Settings for Older Adults: Scoping Review.

Md Shafiqur Rahman Jabin, Ayesha Mirza, Adaobi Ilodibe, Tillal Eldabi, Emilia Vann Yaroson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Md Shafiqur Rahman JabinDepartment of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Universitetsplatsen 1, Kalmar, 392 34, Sweden, 44 7915 673 612.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-8716
Ayesha MirzaFaculty of Engineering and Digital Technologies, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4549-1307
Adaobi IlodibeSchool of Management, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1471-4509
Tillal EldabiSchool of Management, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0045-4075
Emilia Vann YarosonManagement School, Sheffield University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1780-3566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital health twins (DHTs) have been evolving with their diverse applications in medicine, particularly in care settings for older adults, in response to the increasing demands of older adults. Despite its numerous benefits, the optimal implementation of DHTs has faced several challenges, particularly in terms of ethics and quality of care. Given the continuous rise in the need for such care and the evident potential for DHTs to meet these needs, this review seeks to identify and address the gaps in research knowledge to enhance DHT implementation. Objective: The review aims to compile and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the issues associated with quality of care, the ethical implications of DHTs, and the strategies undertaken to overcome those challenges in care settings for older adults. Methods: The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology as a guide. The published studies were searched through CINAHL, MEDLINE, JBI, and Web of Science. The unpublished studies were searched through Mednar, Trove, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. Studies published in English from 2016 were considered. This review included studies of older individuals (aged 60 years and older) undergoing care delivery associated with DHTs and respective care providers. The concept involved the application of technology, and the context included studies based on care settings for older adults. A broad scope of evidence, including quantitative, qualitative, text, and opinion studies, was considered. In addition, 2 independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts and reviewed the full text. Results: The results will be presented in a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. A total of 2 draft charting tables were developed and presented. A summary of the characteristics of the included studies was then described in terms of location, study sites, timing, participants, and outcomes measured or phenomena of interest. A result-based convergent (integrated) synthesis design was used to identify 5 key challenges. Those challenges included (1) data security and privacy concerns, (2) equity and accessibility of health care, (3) effectiveness concerning context, timing, and location, (4) ethical implications regarding autonomy, consent, and overdiagnosis, and (5) the impact of DHTs on health care workflows and provider workload. Conclusions: The studies reviewed reveal several critical characteristics regarding the implementation of DHT technologies and their associated ethical considerations, particularly in terms of safety, equity, timing, location, participant characteristics, and workflow impact. The implications of these challenges emphasize the necessity for more practical ethical guidelines and policy frameworks to mitigate the potential risks associated with DHT application in older care. Further research should be conducted to examine other dimensions of the quality of care, such as access, timeliness, acceptability, and appropriateness.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareTelemedicineAgedDigital HealthHumansMiddle Agedaccessibilitydata securityeffectivenessequalityhealth equityoverdiagnosispatient consentpatient safetyPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAright to privacysocial care

Identifiers

PMID41150865
PMCPMC12560958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.