ArticlePublic health challenges2026
Digital Health and the Digital Divide: A Bibliometric Analysis of Access and Equity Among Vulnerable Populations (2020-2025).
Article in Public health challenges, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed global digital health deployment while simultaneously magnifying structural inequities affecting marginalized communities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Method: Employing a descriptive bibliometric design, we examined 1250 peer-reviewed articles indexed in Scopus (2020-July 2025). Utilizing Biblioshiny and VOSviewer, this study delineates publication trajectories, collaborative networks, and principal domains of inquiry within digital health equity research. Results: Analysis reveals an exponential surge in publications post-2020, with the United States, United Kingdom, China, and Australia as principal producers. Eight thematic clusters emerged, heavily skewed toward technological infrastructure over equity-centric research. Although international collaboration is expanding, the literature indicates that scholarship in LMICs remains highly dependent on international partnerships. Conclusion: This analysis highlights that the global knowledge base regarding digital health inequities remains heavily concentrated in well-resourced regions. To genuinely advance health equity research, future scholarly efforts must prioritize participatory, context-specific studies that elevate the visibility of underserved populations.
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.