ReviewmHealth2026
Accessibility and equity considerations in the clinical validation of prescription digital therapeutics: a scoping review.
Review in mHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prescription digital therapeutics (DTx) are software-based medical interventions regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ensuring accessibility and equity is crucial, as effectiveness depends on patient engagement. This scoping review examines whether clinical validation studies adequately assess health equity, cultural competence, and digital accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which FDA-mandated clinical trials of DTx products report diverse participant characteristics, cultural adaptations, and digital literacy considerations. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov identified clinical validation studies of FDA-approved DTx products. Studies were assessed for health equity factors using the PROGRESS-Plus framework and categorized based on reporting of cultural competence, linguistic accessibility, and digital literacy. Results: Thirty-two studies covering six FDA-approved DTx products were included. Over 60% reported participant demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, education level), but fewer than 15% addressed other health equity factors. Fifteen studies excluded participants who were not fluent in English. No studies incorporated cultural adaptation frameworks or linguistic translations. Two studies found digital literacy significantly affected intervention effectiveness. Conclusions: Clinical validation studies of DTx lack sufficient assessment of health equity, cultural competence, and digital accessibility. Addressing these gaps is essential to ensure equitable access and effectiveness for diverse populations.
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.