ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Who gets included? Equity in digital and decentralised mental health and neurodevelopmental trials: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) may help address underrepresentation in digital mental health research, but their effectiveness in reaching underserved populations is unclear. This review assessed the reporting of equity-relevant demographic data in DCTs to identify groups at risk of exclusion and barriers and facilitators to inclusive participation. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. We included studies reporting on mental health interventions evaluated via remote, online, virtual, or hybrid DCTs, published in English from 2020-2026 (last search date: 01/07/2025), that reported participant demographics. Demographic data were extracted and summarised according to the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Demographic frequencies were compared to national population statistics. Thematic analysis identified barriers and enablers to inclusive participation in DCTs. Fifty-nine papers reporting 57 DCTs were included. Studies involved a range of mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions across the ages. Gender (100%) and age (100%) were universally reported. Reporting of other PROGRESS-Plus variables across the 57 DCTs was limited: social capital (43.9%); race/ethnicity (40.4%); occupation (36.8%); socioeconomic status (35.1%); place of residence (12.3%); religion (5.3%), and non-mental health disability (1.8%). Participants from ethnic minority backgrounds, males, unemployed individuals, and those with lower educational attainment were consistently underrepresented. While rural populations were better represented in Australian studies, data on poverty, religion, and social capital were limited and varied in representativeness. Most studies focused on adults aged 18-50 years. Thematic analysis identified key barriers including, digital exclusion, low digital literacy, cognitive and sensory challenges. Facilitators included therapist or navigator support and simplified onboarding. Equity variables are persistently underreported. DCTs do not effectively engage underserved populations in mental health research, meaning digital interventions are evaluated on unrepresentative samples. This risks perpetuating, and exacerbating, existing health inequalities, limiting the real-world impact of digital mental health solutions.
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.