Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41318492›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

A conceptual framework and umbrella review of digital health technology interventions and health equity.

Paolo Candio, Tahnee Ooms

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Paolo CandioDepartment of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Tahnee OomsEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi, 2749, 21027, Ispra, VA, Italy. Tahnee.OOMS@ec.europa.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence on digital health interventions is rapidly emerging, but how health equity is being addressed remains uncertain. This study presents a conceptual framework that identifies causal pathways linking digital health and health equity, serving as an intervention logic model onto which existing and future evidence can be mapped. As an application of this framework, we conduct an umbrella review to map and narratively summarize published systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of digital health technology interventions. Systematic reviews were searched in electronic databases from 2005 until March 4, 2025, with a focus on chronic disease. Information on study characteristics, digital health technologies, and health equity considerations was extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Thirty-five studies met the eligibility criteria. The most prevalent intervention group was telemedicine, while clinical decision support systems were not the focus of any of the included studies. The systematic reviews varied markedly in quality, with most being equity-focused and addressing more than one dimension of horizontal inequality. Extending the mapping of existing research using the developed framework to other pathways-between digital health, health behaviours, and health outcomes-will help to better inform the design of interventions aimed at addressing the digital divide. Future studies should conduct equity-focused meta-analyses for specific interventions, health outcomes, and decision-making contexts.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyHealth EquityTelemedicineDigital HealthHumansConceptual frameworkDigital healthHealth equityHealth interventions

Identifiers

PMID41318492
PMCPMC12771798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.