ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Monitoring and evaluation of an artificial intelligence-enhanced wound care intervention in a rural health network: defining stakeholder expectations and shared priorities.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic, hard-to-heal, wounds such as diabetes-related foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure injuries, represent a growing global burden, contributing to high morbidity, and increased healthcare costs and demands on clinical capacity. These challenges are amplified in rural and remote settings, where limited resources and availability of services, workforce shortages, and geographical barriers restrict access to specialised wound care. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools offer potential to enhance wound assessment, standardise documentation, and expand access to wound specialists. However, their real-world implementation in rural environments remains under-evaluated, particularly regarding contextual factors that influence adoption, sustainability, and equitable impact. Methods: This study aimed to develop an evaluation framework to guide the implementation of Swift Medical's technology across Brightshores, a rural multi-site health system. A literature scan was conducted to identify key performance indicators related to wound care experience and outcomes, which were refined through ongoing implementation partner meetings. To supplement these findings, semi-structured interviews were conducted with frontline staff ( Results: Findings from the literature scan, interviews, and implementation meetings were triangulated to identify core value propositions and priority outcomes for evaluation. The literature scan provided a foundational set of validated metrics. Interview findings revealed contextual insights regarding technology use in rural care settings, in which three key themes emerged: (1) expectations of the wound care technology; (2) considerations for implementation; and (3) potential barriers to adoption and implementation. Implementation meetings supported feasibility assessment and refinement of indicators within the implementation context. These insights informed the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation framework grounded in the Quintuple Aim, integrating process, outcome, and contextual indicators that reflect the realities of rural health system implementation. Discussion: By grounding evaluation design in the lived experiences and decision-making needs of those closest to implementation, this work demonstrates how context-sensitive evaluation frameworks can strengthen digital health decision making in rural systems. The findings offer practical guidance for health organizations considering the adoption, sustainability, and scale-up of AI-enabled wound care technologies.
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.