ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
An Evaluation of Digital Health Tools to Support Multidisciplinary Teams in Managing Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
Type 2 diabetes requires sustained self-management and coordinated multidisciplinary care, with rising prevalence challenging health systems. Digital health tools and services have been introduced to support patients and healthcare professionals by extending access to education, behaviour change support, and data-enabled decision-making. Whilst previous reviews emphasise the effectiveness of digital interventions, this narrative review draws on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, trials, observational implementation studies, and qualitative evidence to synthesise what is known about their effectiveness, implementation in routine practice, and implications for multidisciplinary care. Randomised trials and observational studies evaluating web-based support, mobile applications, text messaging, and online peer support platforms suggest that digital tools may improve glycaemic control, medication adherence and health behaviours. However, effect sizes are variable, benefits are often short-term, and engagement typically declines over time. Evidence from real-world implementation is more limited and demonstrates a consistent "voltage drop" between trial efficacy and effectiveness in routine practice, driven by inconsistent delivery, low uptake, and limited integration into care pathways. Persistent inequalities in access and use of digital interventions linked to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, and digital literacy further constrain impact. Many interventions lack explicit theoretical foundations, rely on evidence generated from digitally literate populations, and offer limited cultural tailoring. Looking ahead, digital tools should be understood as adjuncts that can extend, reinforce, and personalise support between face-to-face contacts. Future research should prioritise real-world implementation, equitable access and engagement, and the effective integration of digital tools within multidisciplinary diabetes care. Realising this potential will require clearer referral pathways, shared understanding within multidisciplinary teams of which programmes are suitable for whom, and active support for patients to navigate, access, and engage with available options. Hybrid models that combine digital and face-to-face care may therefore be particularly important for embedding digital tools into routine practice while preserving person-centred clinical support.
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.