ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
From pilots to platforms: making digital health work for chronic disease management.
Review in Frontiers in public 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health technologies are increasingly used in chronic disease management, yet the literature still shows a persistent gap between promising pilot projects and durable health-system value. This perspective argues that the central challenge is not a shortage of digital innovation, but inadequate care-grade integration: the extent to which digital tools are embedded within clinical workflows, workforce roles, reimbursement arrangements, interoperability, data governance, and patient support. Drawing on recent reviews, implementation studies, qualitative syntheses, and value-framework papers across chronic disease settings, we examine why uptake remains uneven and why apparently successful tools often fail to scale. Three themes recur. First, evaluations still overemphasize acceptability and adoption relative to clinical, service, and equity outcomes. Second, sustained use depends on workflow fit, burden, trust, and patient preferences rather than usability alone. Third, equity and governance are often treated as downstream considerations instead of core design constraints. We propose a care-grade roadmap built on operational co-design, theory-informed implementation, equity-first delivery, multidimensional value assessment, and learning health-system feedback loops. Digital chronic care is more likely to deliver durable benefit when technologies are designed, evaluated, and funded as components of service redesign rather than as stand-alone tools.
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.