ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Prioritizing Equity in Design and Implementation of Consumer-Facing Digital Resources to Support Engagement and Shared Decision-Making.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: A digitally enabled health system offers the opportunity to address gaps in the implementation of shared decision-making, a collaborative process between health professionals and consumers to decide on the best test, treatment, or management option based on clinical evidence and the consumer's values and informed preferences. There is increasing design and availability of digital tools online to support shared decision-making. Providing opportunities for all consumers to make shared health care decisions is not only key to achieving safer, higher-quality health care, but also an ethical and social imperative that upholds the fundamental rights of every health care consumer. However, there is a risk that digital tools intended to support shared decision-making might worsen inequities in access to and use of health information. In this Viewpoint, we use the case study of digital decision aids to argue that equity should be proactively prioritized as these tools are increasingly designed, accessed, and adopted. We highlight the need for digital health researchers and organizations to (1) address health literacy and accessibility by design, (2) meaningfully co-design tools with underrepresented end users, and (3) generate evidence among underrepresented end users on how emerging digital decision aid features with potential for meeting more diverse needs (eg, interactivity, tailoring, and AI) impact decision-making outcomes. We summarize the current gaps in addressing these recommendations in the development of digital decision aids. Regarding implementation, we also urge policymakers advocating for consumer engagement in health decisions to invest in (1) national, standardized online portals that streamline and enhance consumer and clinician access to co-designed digital decision aids that meet the needs of users with varying levels of health literacy and (2) digital inclusion initiatives that ensure equitable access and adoption of digital tools to support shared decision-making.
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.