ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
An evidence gap map of digital health interventions for enhancing patient engagement in healthcare.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structural biases in digital health intervention and health equity research: a bibliometric knowledge graph analysis (2015-2025).Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly used to strengthen patient engagement. However, despite its rapid growth, DHIs remain unevenly evaluated and poorly standardized. Six databases were searched to generate an evidence gap map of interventions and research gaps for DHIs targeting patient engagement. A total of 160 systematic reviews (including 42 meta-analyses) comprising 3974 primary studies were mapped with most (92%) conducted in high-income countries. Evidence was concentrated around mHealth, eHealth, telehealth, and messaging technologies. Commonly reported outcomes included medication adherence, quality of life, implementation outcomes, and self-management. Overall, 61% of reviews reported positive conclusions, although most were rated as low or critically low methodological quality. Priority areas include strengthening evidence from LMICs, evaluating long-term and emerging DHIs (e.g., wearables and gamified platforms), and improving methodological rigor for systematic reviews. The findings highlight disparities in the global DHI evidence base and identify priority gaps for future research and implementation.
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.