ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2026
Returning value to communities from the All of Us Research Program through the lens of social determinants of health and ethical, legal, and social implications.
Review in International journal for equity in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital health technology burden and frustration among patients with multimorbidity.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Foundation models for cardiovascular diseases and medicine.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Telehealth Utilization and Patient Experiences: Patterns of Social Determinants of Health Among Individuals With Hypertension and Diabetes.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Identifying Digital Health Technology Engagement and Frustration Phenotypes in Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions: Evidences from a Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Study.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis scoping review aims to summarize the importance of community return on investment in the All of Us Research Program, particularly for enhancing the representation of underrepresented communities. It explores previous studies on social determinants of health (SDoH) and discusses the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) associated with past implementations of the program. Furthermore, it discusses encountered challenges and explores strategies.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of relevant literature to examine the intersection of SDoH and ELSI within the All of Us Program. A systematic search of the literature was performed in March 2025, on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar.
resultsWe identified 17 studies that focused on the intersection of the SDoH domains and ELSI. Studies showcased the importance of addressing economic, educational, and environmental factors alongside ethical considerations to enhance health equity. Despite challenges such as data completeness and participant diversity, the program’s approach to engaging with diverse communities and prioritizing ethical standards exemplifies a forward-thinking strategy in research.
conclusionUnderstanding the intersection of SDoH and ELSI is crucial for the success of the All of Us Program. Integrating these factors may enhance the program’s ability to address the needs of underrepresented communities, ultimately increasing community return on investment. By continuing to address the challenges of inclusivity and data comprehensiveness, the program stands to contribute substantially to the reduction of health disparities and the advancement of healthcare for all.
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.