ReviewInternet interventions2026
Designing for all: A scoping review and critical analysis on how digital mental health interventions serve (or fail) diverse women.
Review in Internet interventions, 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
Background: Women face unique and diverse mental health challenges and therefore require tailored interventions that address their specific needs and lived realities. Research has shown a lack of digital interventions designed for and with women from marginalized backgrounds, such as minority racial/ethnic backgrounds or with low socioeconomic status. If Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHI) are not designed with active involvement of women from diverse backgrounds, they may fail to reach their public health objectives, which potentially exacerbates existing health disparities. How Human-Centered design methods are applied and reported, and whether women from diverse backgrounds are involved in the design and development of Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHI), is under-researched. Objective: This study examined the methods and frameworks used in the design and development processes of DMHIs, whether and how studies include women from diverse backgrounds, and whether they tailor to their diverse needs related to intersectional identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age) in the design and development process. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The databases included are Scopus, PubMed and IEEE Xplore, and the databases are searched from the inception until the 31st of May 2026. We included 77 articles that described the design process of digital mental health solutions for women. Results: Among the 77 reviewed studies, 18 (23.4%) did not explicitly state their design methods, and most of them provided limited information on the characteristics of the included populations. Only 16 (20.8%) studies consistently involved users across all design stages. Intersectional identities were considered in only 26 (33.8%) studies. We observed an overrepresentation of research in higher-income countries, an underrepresentation of women from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, a narrow age range of participants, and a lack of consideration of intersectional identities. Conclusions: Our findings reveal critical gaps in the development of DMHIs for women, including the superficial reporting and application of Human-Centered Design methods in the design process, limited user involvement, and a lack of consideration of diversity, inclusivity and intersectionality. Future research should emphasize active involvement of end-users from the earliest design phases onwards and adopting an intersectional lens in their design processes. We propose a research agenda for better reporting and applying HCD methods in future DMHI research, towards designing diverse, inclusive and equitable digital solutions for all women. Registry and registry number for systematic reviews or meta-analyses: A protocol of this study is pre-registered at Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WC79P).
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.