ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Age and the digital divide in the use of health technologies: a scoping review.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The present study undertakes a scoping review of research on the intersection of age, health technologies, and the digital divide, with a specific focus on identifying facilitators and barriers to adoption, and strategies for inclusive implementation. Methods: A scoping review of literature from ten databases was used to identify papers published 2010-2024, from which we selected 45 publications that focused on older adults, technology, and health care. Technologies included synchronous video, asynchronous telehealth, wearable sensors, mobile health devices, and other health technologies across four areas of impact: individual, clinic, hospital, and system or organizational levels. Qualitative content, framework analyses, and subject matter expert discussion were used to analyze data and identify best practices in implementation. Results: Of the 4,368 potential literature references, 264 were duplicates, and our review of the title and abstracts of 4,104 (93.9%) found that 3,692 (90.0%) were irrelevant. A full-text review of 412 studies revealed that 83 (20.1%) studies met all the criteria related to technology and health care, and 38 (45.7%) were removed (17 search terms were mentioned yet not a focus of the research, 12 included methods not sufficiently geared to assess outcomes, 5 were non-peer reviewed literature and 4 had the wrong publication type (e.g., commentary, editorial)). This resulted in 45 articles from seven countries and one global/multinational study ranging from 2017 to 2024. All studies addressed the individual level ( Conclusions: This scoping review highlights a growing body of literature exploring the intersection of aging, healthcare, and digital technology, but also reveals gaps in addressing multi-level implementation challenges.
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.