ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Reimagining paediatric care: technology, trust, and the global movement for child-centred innovation.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technology is rapidly reshaping paediatric healthcare, offering unprecedented opportunities to improve outcomes, personalise care, and extend reach beyond traditional clinical settings. From AI-driven diagnostics and wearable monitoring to immersive therapeutics and digital mental health tools, innovation is enabling more proactive, child-centred models of care. In the UK, initiatives such as the National Centre for Child Health Technology (NCCHT) and the NIHR HealthTech Research Centre in Paediatrics and Child Health are driving strategic adoption, while international networks including, KidsUp in the US, EPTRI, i4Kids in Spain, ISPI, the WHO's Global Digital Health Strategy and EU-funded paediatric innovation consortia are fostering cross-border collaboration and knowledge exchange. Despite this momentum, significant challenges remain. Fragmented infrastructure, limited interoperability, and uneven digital literacy across the workforce hinder widespread implementation. Regulatory frameworks often lag behind technological advances, particularly in areas like AI, where transparency, bias mitigation, and safeguarding are critical. Moreover, funding pathways for paediatric-specific technologies remain underdeveloped compared to adult-focused innovation. Children and young people (CYP) are increasingly vocal about their expectations for health tech. They value tools that are intuitive, inclusive, and respectful of their autonomy. Feedback from CYP engagement exercises highlights a desire for technologies that support mental wellbeing, facilitate communication with clinicians, and offer personalised insights, without feeling intrusive or overtly clinical. However, concerns persist around data privacy, digital exclusion, and the potential for technology to replace human connection. Ethical considerations are also central to paediatric digital health. AI applications must be transparent, accountable, and co-designed with children and families to ensure they reflect lived experience and avoid unintended harm. Equity must be embedded from the outset, ensuring that innovation does not widen disparities in access, outcomes, or trust. To realise the full potential of technology in paediatrics, we must build inclusive, ethically grounded ecosystems that centre children's voices, support the workforce, and enable safe, scalable innovation. This requires sustained investment, cross-sector collaboration, and a commitment to embedding digital transformation within the broader goals of child health equity and empowerment.
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.