Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38660571›Full record

ArticleClinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH2024

Telemedicine, e-Health, and Digital Health Equity: A Scoping Review.

Donatella Rita Petretto, Gian Pietro Carrogu, Luca Gaviano, Roberta Berti, Martina Pinna, Andrea Domenico Petretto, Roberto Pili

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Donatella Rita PetrettoDepartment of Education, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari 09124, Italy.
Gian Pietro CarroguDepartment of Education, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari 09124, Italy.
Luca GavianoDepartment of Education, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari 09124, Italy.
Roberta BertiDepartment of Education, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari 09124, Italy.
Martina PinnaDepartment of Education, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari 09124, Italy.
Andrea Domenico PetrettoDepartment of Education, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari 09124, Italy.
Roberto PiliIERFOP Onlus, Via Platone 1/3, Cagliari 09100, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: With the progressive digitization of people's lives and in the specific healthcare context, the issue of equity in the healthcare domain has extended to digital environments or e-environments, assuming the connotation of "Digital Health Equity" (DHE). Telemedicine and e-Health, which represent the two main e-environments in the healthcare context, have shown great potential in the promotion of health outcomes, but there can be unintended consequences related to the risk of inequalities. In this paper, we aimed to review papers that have investigated the topic of Digital Health Equity in Telemedicine and e-Health [definition(s), advantages, barriers and risk factors, interventions]. Methods: We conducted a scoping review according to the methodological framework proposed in PRISMA-ScR guidelines on the relationship between Digital Health Equity and Telemedicine and e-Health Results: Regarding Digital Health Equity in Telemedicine and e-Health, even if there is no unique definition, there is a general agreement on the idea that it is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. When promoting Digital Health Equity, some people may incur some risk/s of inequities and/or they may meet some obstacles. Regarding intervention, some authors have proposed a specific field/level of intervention, while other authors have discussed multidimensional interventions based on interdependence among the different levels and the mutually reinforcing effects between all of them. Conclusion: In summary, the present paper has discussed Digital Health Equity in Telemedicine and e-Health. Promoting equity of access to healthcare is a significant challenge in contemporary times and in the near future. While on the one hand, the construct "equity" applied to the health context highlights the importance of creating and sustaining the conditions to allow anyone to be able to reach (and develop) their "health potential", it also raises numerous questions on "how this can happen". An overall and integrated picture of all the variables that promote DHE is needed, taking into account the interdependence among the different levels and the mutually reinforcing effects between all of them.

Indexed as

Digital health equitye-healthEquityHealthcare domainScoping reviewTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38660571
PMCPMC11041391

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.