Evidence mapPaperPMID 40446336Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025

The Role of Digital Health Equity Audits in Preventing Harmful Infodemiology.

Massimiliano Biondi, Fabio Filippetti, Giorgio Brandi, Elsa Ravaglia, Sofia Filippetti, Pamela Barbadoro

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Massimiliano BiondiMedical Directorate, Fabriano Hospital Site, World Federation of Public Health Associations GHEDT WG, Ancona Health Authority AST AN, Via Stelluti Scala, 26, Fabriano, 60044, Italy, 39 0732 707111.ORCID 0009-0004-6160-5764
Fabio FilippettiPrevention and Health Promotion Unit in Living and Working Places of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy.ORCID 0009-0002-8479-9739
Giorgio BrandiUnit of Hygiene, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1380-6137
Elsa RavagliaPesaro-Urbino Health Authority AST PU, Pesaro, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-6743-5519
Sofia FilippettiDepartment of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3676-9885
Pamela BarbadoroUnit of Hygiene, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1495-0165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health disparities persist and are influenced by digital transformation. Although digital tools offer opportunities, they can also exacerbate existing inequalities, a problem amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related infodemic. Health equity audit (HEA) tools, such as those developed in the United Kingdom, provide a framework to assess equity but require adaptation for the digital context. Digital determinants of health (DDoH) are increasingly recognized as crucial factors influencing health outcomes in the digital era. Objective: This editorial proposes an approach to extend HEA principles to create a specific framework, the digital health equity audit (DHEA), designed to systematically assess and address health inequities within the design, implementation, and evaluation of digital health technologies, with a focus on DDoH. Methods: We propose a cyclical DHEA model based on existing HEA principles, integrating them with digital health equity frameworks. The DHEA cycle comprises six phases: (1) scoping the audit and mobilizing the team (including community members); (2) developing the digital health equity profile and identifying inequities (assessing DDoH at individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels); (3) identifying high-impact actions to address DDoH and inequities; (4) prioritizing actions for maximum equity impact; (5) implementing and supporting change; and (6) evaluating progress and impact, and refining. This method emphasizes multilevel interventions and stakeholder engagement. Results: The main result is the articulation of the DHEA framework: a structured, 6-phase cyclical model to guide organizations in the analysis and proactive mitigation of digital health-related disparities. The framework explicitly integrates the assessment of DDoH across multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, community, societal) and promotes the development of targeted interventions to ensure digital solutions promote equity. Conclusions: The DHEA model offers an integrated approach to consider social, epidemiological, health, and technological variables, aiming to reduce health inequities through the conscious use of new technologies. It is emphasized that digital technologies can be the cause or the solution to inequalities; DHEAs are proposed as a tool to foster equity. Its systematic adoption, along with a collaborative approach (co-design) and trust building, can help ensure that the benefits of health digitization are equitably distributed while strengthening trust in institutions. Continued attention is needed to manage emerging challenges such as infodemiology in the era of big data and artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

COVID-19Digital TechnologyHealth EquityDigital HealthHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Social Determinants of HealthUnited Kingdomauditdigitalequityinfodemiologyquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID40446336
PMCPMC12143845

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.