ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Bridging the divide in digital therapeutics (DTx): Partnership strategies for broader representation across DTx development and deployment.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While Digital Therapeutics (DTx) are widely considered a key strategy to reach certain populations with unmet healthcare needs, a range of differences in the impact and adoption of DTx still exists. These differences are not just rooted in access, but also in gaps in knowledge about how to produce community-relevant DTx, primarily stemming from the implicit or explicit exclusion of those with both relevant trained expertise (gained through formal education or professional experience) and lived expertise (gained through personal and direct experience). This paper expands the traditional conceptualization of the digital divide beyond access to encompass four interconnected domains: the Digital Knowledge Divide, Digital Evidence Generation Divide, Digital Production Divide, and Digital Adoption Divide. Drawing on Ridgeway's cultural schema theory of status, we demonstrate how conventional team hierarchies in DTx development systematically allocate status and decision-making authority through automatic cultural defaults, credentials, professional roles, demographic characteristics, rather than through contextual assessment of who possesses the most relevant expertise for specific decisions. To address this challenge, we propose a theoretical framework for dynamic expertise integration that deliberately disrupts rapid-stabilizing hierarchies by creating explicit relational spaces where teams can recognize and value both lived and trained expertise contextually. We operationalize this framework through the DTx Team Building Worksheet, a practical tool that integrates team science approaches with Community-Led Transformation principles and Culturally and Community Responsive Design. The Worksheet provides structured processes for assessing diverse forms of expertise, defining roles dynamically, and identifying decision-making priorities that shift appropriately across the DTx lifecycle. This integrated approach including problem analysis, theoretical framework, and practical tool, offers a pathway toward more equitable DTx development by enabling teams to make status dynamics explicit, expand what counts as expertise, and establish new consensual norms about contextually-appropriate status allocation. We invite stakeholders across sectors to test and refine these tools in diverse contexts, recognizing that creating equitable DTx requires sustained commitment to partnerships that genuinely honor multiple forms of expertise and willingness to disrupt comfortable hierarchies in service of producing interventions truly designed for and with the communities they aim to serve.
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.