ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Digital health technologies for adults with ADHD: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is associated with negative long-term outcomes including accident and injury, impairment in social and occupational functioning, and a high rate of mental health comorbidities. Access to suitable healthcare remains challenging due to diagnostic delays, variable treatment responses, and difficulties transitioning out of pediatric support structures. Digital health technologies (DHTs) hold the potential to address these challenges. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify DHTs developed specifically for adults with ADHD, categorize them by their intended role within the health and social care system and by their core technological features, examine their methodological trends, and examine the quality of evidence by conducting a Risk of Bias analysis. Results: A systematic search across databases, up to December 2025, identified 133 eligible studies. 63 were categorized as Discussion: Through our analysis, we identify various opportunities to strengthen the evidence base. This includes clarifying clinical integration points for diagnostic DHTs, ensuring technologies support adherence by incorporating lived experience, and developing remote monitoring technologies that demonstrate value to both clinicians and patients. Key questions remain on how DHTs can be translated into clinical practice, and we highlight various implementation-oriented frameworks which can guide development by encouraging multidisciplinary research that ensures the broader health and care system is considered alongside isolated measures of preliminary efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/tk3pm.
Indexed as
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.