ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Identifying facilitators of and barriers to digital health literacy in pediatric rheumatic disease: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying facilitators of and barriers to digital health literacy in pediatric rheumatic disease: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health (DH) technologies have the potential to benefit pediatric patients with rheumatic diseases and their caregivers. Digital health literacy (DHL) refers to the knowledge and skills necessary to use technology and the internet to manage and communicate about health. The aim of this scoping review is to identify facilitators of and barriers to DHL and map them to the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behavior (COM-B Model) for children and adolescents with rheumatic diseases and their primary caregivers. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest for English full-text primary research studies. Facilitators of and barriers to DHL identified were codified and mapped to the COM-B Model. This review adhered to the JBI scoping review framework and conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Scoping Review guidelines. Of the 5789 unique records, 44 met inclusion criteria. All the included studies did not explicitly address the concept and impact of DHL. However, the studies identified promoting and detracting factors that matched the definition of DHL. Thus, these were coded as facilitators of and barriers to DHL. The COM-B Model domain of psychological capability emerged as a major determinant of DHL. The COM-B Model domain of psychological capability emerged as a prominent source of facilitators of and barriers to DHL. The design, function, language, and presentation of DH crafted to meet the developmental and educational needs of the user were essential to improving DHL. Likewise, providers fostering quality communication and answering medical and technical questions arising from DH use fostered DHL in the domain of physical opportunity. Addressing DHL requires consideration across clinical, administrative, design, and research contexts. Recognizing low DHL and enacting educational interventions are essential to empowering digital health users. Trial Registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/g4jbh/).
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.