Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41567773›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025

Evaluation of health equity frameworks in telehealth and digital health: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Siyu Wang, Anagha Killedar, Amy Von Huben, Sarah Norris, Andrew Wilson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 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
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

5 authors.

Siyu WangFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anagha KilledarFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Amy Von HubenFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sarah NorrisFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Andrew WilsonFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The rise of telehealth and digital health solutions has been promoted as a transformative approach to bridging healthcare access gaps. However, these technologies may introduce new disparities related to digital literacy, Internet access, and technology affordability. While several health equity frameworks exist for traditional healthcare delivery, their applicability to telehealth contexts remains unclear. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases for peer-reviewed articles discussing health equity frameworks relevant to telehealth and digital health. A narrative synthesis approach was employed, complemented by a tailored quality appraisal assessing Clarity, Theoretical Basis, Comprehensiveness, and Applicability to telehealth. Framework elements were categorized into drivers, measures, and enablers/modifiers of health equity. Results: The search yielded 707 records; after removing 25 duplicates, 27 full-text articles were assessed, and 17 were included in the final synthesis. Thirteen unique health equity frameworks were identified. Six frameworks were explicitly developed for digital health, telehealth, or eHealth contexts, while seven were general health equity frameworks with potential applicability to telehealth. Eight frameworks demonstrated moderate-to-high quality scores. Across frameworks, notable gaps remain in addressing telehealth-specific challenges and in providing actionable guidance for real-world implementation. Conclusion: Existing frameworks provide valuable insights but require adaptation to address telehealth-specific challenges fully. Tailored frameworks that incorporate digital determinants of health, prioritize equitable access to technology, and facilitate system integration are essential. These advancements will enable telehealth to effectively reduce health disparities and advance equity in healthcare access. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/607575, Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42024607575).

Indexed as

Digital HealthHealth EquityTelemedicineHealth Services AccessibilityHumansdeterminants of healthdigital healthhealthcare disparitieshealth equityhealth equity frameworkstelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41567773
PMCPMC12815789

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.