ArticleDigital health
Digital health interventions for older adults with heart failure: A scoping review of participant representation, engagement, and equity considerations.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine participant representation, engagement, and equity considerations in randomized controlled trials of digital health interventions for older adults living with heart failure, using the PROGRESS-Plus framework to assess reporting across key social determinants of health. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Randomized controlled trials evaluating digital health interventions for older adults with heart failure were identified through systematic database searches. Data were extracted on participant characteristics, intervention features, engagement outcomes, and reporting across PROGRESS-Plus domains, including place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, age, disability, sexual orientation, and health literacy. Results: Fourteen studies (n = 5,959 participants) were included. Interventions commonly involved remote monitoring, telehealth, wearable devices, and web-based platforms. While overall engagement among enrolled older adults was generally high, reporting of equity-relevant characteristics was inconsistent. Race/ethnicity and education were variably reported, while socioeconomic status and rurality were often minimally described. Cognitive impairment was frequently an exclusion criterion, and digital literacy was rarely assessed using standardized measures. Sexual orientation and health literacy were not reported in any study. These gaps limit understanding of how digital health interventions reach and benefit socially and clinically diverse older adults. Conclusions: Digital health interventions for older adults with heart failure demonstrate promising engagement but are characterized by limited and inconsistent reporting of equity-related factors. Greater attention to inclusive recruitment, standardized reporting across PROGRESS-Plus domains, and equity-informed intervention design is needed to ensure that digital innovations support diverse older adults living with heart failure.
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.