ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025
Rethinking the digital divide in health: a critical interpretive synthesis of research literature.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
- FAIR-Birth: Development and Feasibility Testing of an AI-Supported Advance Birth Planning Application for Midwifery-Led Antenatal Care-A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advancing health equity in proactive health management: from data underrepresentation and algorithmic bias to a closed-loop governance framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Connection, hope, and reciprocal valuation: Experiences of participating in the peer-led course "Recovery is up to you".Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The digital divide in health has rapidly expanded during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, with fragmented understanding and an unclear implementation process, for the formal integration of digital health into the healthcare system, which challenges actionable policy development. Methods: This critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) of the literature aimed to capture the complexity of the digital divide in health. This began with a scoping review of literature published between 2013 and 2023 describing the digital divide in health within the WHO's European Region, in Web of Science, Medline (via Ovid), PsycInfo (via Ovid), and Sociological Abstract (via ProQuest). Three sets of two reviewers independently conducted the selection, and all contributed to the synthesis process. Results: Of 4,967 original articles identified, 49 articles were included for review. Results revealed a synthesizing argument that the digital divide should be considered as more of a dynamic, entangled, and reciprocal collection of "areas" of phenomenon affecting service users, rather than "levels". Results describe the three synthetic constructs that describe this synthesizing argument. Conclusion: Findings suggest that digital health solutions should respectfully consider the pace of human healing, long-term user engagement and adaptability. We call for the importance of inter- and multidisciplinary collaboration to ensure effective and context-sensitive implementation in future studies.
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.