ReviewJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2026
Innovation without inclusion? a scoping review on inequities in diabetes technology access.
Review in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to systematically map existing evidence on how emerging medical and digital technologies influence equity in diabetes prevention, diagnosis, and management. It addressed the question: How do socioeconomic, geographic, racial/ethnic, and age-related factors shape access to diabetes technologies across different populations? Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between 2003 and 2025. Eligible studies examined the impact of digital health, wearable, or pharmaceutical technologies on equity in diabetes care. Data were extracted and synthesized thematically across four dimensions of disparities: socioeconomic status, geography, race/ethnicity, and age/life stage. Results: From 1,635 identified records, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were from high-income countries, predominantly the United States. The findings revealed consistent disparities in access to continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, telemedicine, and mobile health applications. Barriers included high costs, limited insurance coverage, low digital literacy, geographic inaccessibility, and provider bias. Disadvantaged, minority, rural, and older populations were most affected. Conclusion: Technological innovations have advanced diabetes care, but not equitably. Without equity-focused policy and system-level interventions, digital and medical technologies risk reinforcing existing disparities. Inclusive innovation strategies are essential to ensure fair access for all populations. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-026-01901-y.
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.