ReviewPharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Development and Validation of Digital Decision Aids to Support Medication Adherence in Older Adults: A Scoping Review.
Review in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe development of technology to support medication management and adherence among older adults is rising. Many of these technologies offer diverse features, which add complexity when making a choice. Evidence-based decision aids can inform decision-making in such situations. To inform the development of such a decision aid, it is necessary to review the literature on the development and validation of decision aids that impact medication adherence. Therefore, this study aims to review the available literature on digital decision aids that examine the impact on medication adherence and investigate their features, development, and validation processes.
methodsAdopting the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework, a comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, IPA and Scopus, using four key concepts: medication adherence, decision aids/tools, older adults, and software/technology. Eligibility criteria included studies that enrolled older adults with a mean/median age of 65 years, published protocols for studies that supported decision-making, published in the English language, and examined and reported the development and/or validation and/or evaluation of digital decision aids.
resultsOur search identified 3526 records. After removing 947 duplicates, 2579 records underwent title and abstract screening, of which 726 proceeded to full-text screening. Following full-text screening, one research protocol met all eligibility criteria and was included in the review. An additional 16 systematic reviews were examined to identify potentially relevant studies from their reference lists; however, none of the studies identified through this supplementary screening met the eligibility criteria.
conclusionThe limited number of eligible studies shows a substantial gap in the literature on the development and validation of digital decision aids that support medication adherence among older adults. Further research in this field is needed to develop and validate evidence-based and user-centered digital decision aids for this population.
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.