Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42733509›Full record

ReviewDigital health

How to design digital health interventions with artificial intelligence: A scoping review.

Shuimei Liu, L Raymond Guo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shuimei LiuSchool of Juridical Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6034-9807
L Raymond GuoSchool of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-7618

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Digital health interventions often struggle to scale due to rigid, resource-intensive design methods. A shift is underway toward evaluating AI-as-Agent, a dynamic partner in the design process, rather than a static clinical product. This systematic scoping review maps the landscape of generative digital health design and its impact on healthcare transformation. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library (2020-2025) for studies utilizing AI tools to actively support the design, development, or evaluation of digital health artifacts with human-in-the-loop validation. Results: Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria. We identified distinct design roles for AI: Creator, Facilitator, Co-Designer, Tester, and Evaluator. Results indicate AI shows potential to mitigate critical design risks: synthetic data enables pre-clinical risk abatement; generative co-design fosters epistemic agency and patient inclusivity; and automated workflow analysis reduces clinician cognitive load. Based on these findings, we propose the AGENT Framework (Algorithmic Simulation, Generative Co-Design, Embedded Guardrails, Next-Best-Action, Tracked Evolution). Conclusions: AI is evolving into a collaborative design partner capable of enhancing the equity, scalability, and safety of digital health interventions. The AGENT framework offers a structured roadmap for stakeholders to integrate AI into the innovation lifecycle.

Indexed as

digital healthgenerative AIhealth informaticshuman-in-the-looppatient empowermentsystems design

Identifiers

PMID42733509
PMCPMC13571019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.