ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Consensus-based reporting guideline for participatory development and evaluation of digital health interventions.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- Theory-informed design and dissemination of multilingual menopause CoMICs: the Menopause MEET initiative.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Existing literature reveals shortcomings in reporting on digital health interventions (DHIs) development and evaluation, resulting in limited traceability and hampered knowledge growth. Despite existing health research reporting guidelines, a specific guideline for the participatory development and evaluation of DHIs is lacking. This study aimed to develop a consensus-based reporting guideline to increase the transparency and comparability of both the participatory development and evaluation of DHIs. Following the methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network and Mohers et al., a web-based Delphi Study comprising three rounds (two surveys; one workshop) was conducted. An international panel of 66 experts from 23 countries agreed on 68 items for the final reporting guideline, derived from existing reporting guidelines and refined through expert consultation. The final consensus-based reporting guideline ParDE-DHI addresses a significant gap in the systematic reporting of participatory development and evaluation of DHIs. Tailored to the unique challenges of participatory design and research, it enhances the credibility and comparability of study designs and results. This is a crucial step towards promoting best practices and advancing methodological rigor in the field. International and interdisciplinary panel input ensures adaptability and relevance across digital health contexts, ultimately fostering improved participation and knowledge sharing within the research community.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.