The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 16 of the 51 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Rapid digitalization of health care and a dearth of digital health education for medical students and junior physicians worldwide means there is an imperative for more training in this dynamic and evolving field. Objective: To develop an evidence-informed, consensus-guided, adaptable digital health competencies framework for the design and development of digital health curricula in medical institutions globally. Evidence Review: A core group was assembled to oversee the development of the Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education (DECODE) framework. First, an initial list was created based on findings from a scoping review and expert consultations. A multidisciplinary and geographically diverse panel of 211 experts from 79 countries and territories was convened for a 2-round, modified Delphi survey conducted between December 2022 and July 2023, with an a priori consensus level of 70%. The framework structure, wordings, and learning outcomes with marginal percentage of agreement were discussed and determined in a consensus meeting organized on September 8, 2023, and subsequent postmeeting qualitative feedback. In total, 211 experts participated in round 1, 149 participated in round 2, 12 participated in the consensus meeting, and 58 participated in postmeeting feedback. Findings: The DECODE framework uses 3 main terminologies: domain, competency, and learning outcome. Competencies were grouped into 4 domains: professionalism in digital health, patient and population digital health, health information systems, and health data science. Each competency is accompanied by a set of learning outcomes that are either mandatory or discretionary. The final framework comprises 4 domains, 19 competencies, and 33 mandatory and 145 discretionary learning outcomes, with descriptions for each domain and competency. Six highlighted areas of considerations for medical educators are the variations in nomenclature, the distinctiveness of digital health, the concept of digital health literacy, curriculum space and implementation, the inclusion of discretionary learning outcomes, and socioeconomic inequities in digital health education. Conclusions and Relevance: This evidence-informed and consensus-guided framework will play an important role in enabling medical institutions to better prepare future physicians for the ongoing digital transformation in health care. Medical schools are encouraged to adopt and adapt this framework to align with their needs, resources, and circumstances.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The DECODE framework was developed through a scoping review, expert consultations, a 2-round modified Delphi survey, a consensus meeting, and postmeeting feedback to define digital health competencies for medical education globally. The final framework comprises 4 domains, 19 competencies, and 178 learning outcomes (33 mandatory and 145 discretionary).
Key findings
- The final DECODE framework contains 4 domains—professionalism in digital health, patient and population digital health, health information systems, and health data science—with 19 competencies, 33 mandatory learning outcomes, and 145 discretionary learning outcomes.
- The Delphi survey involved 211 experts from 79 countries and territories in round 1 and 149 in round 2 (70.6% retention); the a priori consensus threshold was 70%, and all newly added round 2 items reached consensus.
- Of the 178 learning outcomes, 119 (66.8%) related to knowledge, 35 (19.7%) to skill, and 24 (13.5%) to behavior; 13 of 19 competencies have both mandatory and discretionary learning outcomes, while 6 have only discretionary outcomes.
- Postmeeting feedback from 58 respondents showed 29 (50.0%) expressed willingness to adopt the DECODE framework at their medical schools, 6 (10.3%) would consider adoption with conditions, 7 (12.1%) mentioned a need for further discussion, 6 (10.3%) indicated barriers or were noncommittal, and 10 (17.2%) did not directly respond.
Methods
- Five stages: mapping based on a scoping review, iterative expert consultations and piloting, a 2-round modified Delphi survey (December 2022–July 2023), a consensus meeting on September 8, 2023, and postmeeting qualitative feedback.
- Participants: 211 experts in round 1, 149 in round 2, 12 in the consensus meeting, and 58 in postmeeting feedback; round 1 included 79 countries and territories, round 2 included 68 countries, with representation from all 6 WHO regions and all 4 World Bank country income groups.
- Consensus was defined a priori as at least 70% combined agreement (agree and strongly agree, excluding blank votes and abstentions); round 2 also asked experts to classify learning outcomes as mandatory, elective, or supplementary, with qualitative free-text analysis and ACCORD reporting.
Limitations
- Stated: the preliminary scoping review included only English-language literature; the study was conducted in English, limiting participation to English speakers; the Likert scale lacked a neutral option, possibly introducing response bias; and the Delphi approach carries potential selection bias from purposive sampling and may not fully capture all country-specific contexts.
- Stated: experts were confined to voting on a predetermined list, so exhaustiveness of the initial item list could not be guaranteed, although free-text responses were allowed to propose additional items.
- Evident: the framework has not yet been implemented or validated in medical schools; the authors state that future work may include an implementation guide, assessment methods, and evaluation of the framework’s impact on student competencies and patient care.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own interpretation · 25 Own method · 15 Own result · 14 No basis given · 9 No full text of the sources · 6 Couldn’t confirm · 6 Sources not found · 3 Partly supported · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“According to the Stanford Medicine 2020 Health Trends Report, 6 44% of physicians considered their education to be inadequate for new health care technologies.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [6] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Quantitative and Qualitative Results; page unavailable) report European medical students’ views on eHealth training, not physicians’ views. Searches for the Stanford Medicine 2020 Health Trends Report and the 44% figure found no passage in our copy supporting the attributed statistic. (LLM, conf=0.77)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The deficiency of digital health competencies (DHCs) among health workforce hampers the opportunity to seize the full potential of these technologies to improve health outcomes.13”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] source
The Conclusion says that without a digitally ready workforce, the potential benefits of digital healthcare will be restricted. The Introduction describes health informatics as using information and technology to provide better patient care and notes the need for digital readiness across health professions. The study assesses UK postgraduate doctors, but the cited sentence reflects the paper’s broader argument rather than claiming a measured effect across the workforce. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The modified Delphi method, used to establish consensus among a panel of experts, was chosen because it provides opportunity for experts to discuss and interact in a final meeting.49”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Methods
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [49] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods > Questionnaire development process section describes expert review of questionnaire items, but does not mention a modified Delphi method or a final meeting. Searches for “modified Delphi,” “Delphi,” and expert discussion at a final meeting found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed reason for choosing that method. Page numbers are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The competencies were organized into 4 domains: professionalism in digital health, patient and population digital health, health information systems, and health data science (Box).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Final DECODE Framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 178 learning outcomes were labeled as relating to medical graduates' knowledge (119 learning outcomes [66.8%]), skill (35 learning outcomes [19.7%]), or behavior (24 learning outcomes [13.5%]).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Final DECODE Framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The recommended DHCs, currently absent from standardized licensing examinations, need to be included and assessed in the future.77,78”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > 4.4 Precision medicine (5 LOs)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [78]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In-depth deliberations during the consensus meeting led to panelists reclassifying 4 discretionary learning outcomes with a marginal percentage of agreement (ie, 60.0%-69.9%)as mandatory”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These 151 learning outcomes were labeled as discretionary.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From an initial list of 4 domains, 18 competencies, and 189 learning outcomes, after round 1, 4 domains, 18 competencies, and 177 learning outcomes achieved the predefined level of consensus (ie, Ն70%) and were subsequently retained for round 2 (Figure ).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This multistage international consensus process has produced a comprehensive DHC framework for preregistration medical education.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 44
- Probably not a substantial claim. 62
- Not yet classified. 1
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Two recently published digital health frameworks for medical students outlined 27 artificial intelligence-specific competencies 47 and 40 digital health topics, 48 respectively.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [47] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Introduction identify this as a framework for digital health equity intended for digital health tool creators and developers, not a framework for medical students. The paper describes digital determinants of health, not 40 digital health curriculum topics; the 27 AI competencies are attached to a separate citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Could not verifycites [48] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction mentions artificial intelligence as part of digital health, and Results > Research Topics categorizes digital health literacy publications. Neither passage addresses frameworks for medical students or lists 27 AI-specific competencies or 40 digital health topics. Searches for both counts and their associated terms found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This report is consistent with findings from multiple countries showing that many medical students and junior physicians do not feel equipped to use digital health technologies and are keen to receive more training in this field.[7][8][9][10][11][12]”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] source
- Partly supportedcites [8] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract Results report that most surveyed medical students in China said they urgently needed digital-health knowledge and skills, and the Discussion says more than 80% wanted to learn more in their curriculum. This supports the claim about students wanting training and feeling underprepared, but the paper’s survey does not establish the same finding for junior physicians. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [9] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that medical students lack an overview of digital health applications and that two-thirds request additional digital communication training. The study surveyed Austrian medical students, not junior physicians, so it does not establish that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The application of digital health has rapidly grown worldwide over the past 4 decades, and accelerated particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1][2][3]”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [1] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section describes uses of telehealth during the COVID-19 outbreak, and the Conclusion calls for expanded use. But the paper does not establish that digital health grew rapidly worldwide over the preceding four decades or that its rate of adoption accelerated during the pandemic; its focus is telehealth’s potential and use during COVID-19. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [2] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Patient-facing technologies; page unavailable) describe UC San Diego Health rapidly expanding telemedicine during COVID-19, and the Discussion describes pandemic-related uses elsewhere. The paper does not establish that digital health grew worldwide over the preceding four decades or measure a worldwide acceleration during the pandemic. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [3] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says US telemedicine use increased steadily over the preceding decade, then expanded rapidly during COVID-19. The paper supports the pandemic acceleration, but not the claim of rapid worldwide growth in digital health over four decades: its account concerns the narrower field of telemedicine, chiefly in the United States. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Effective training in digital health is vital for delivering safe, efficient, and high-quality health care.13”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says postgraduate health-informatics training is crucial to bridging doctors’ skills gap, and the Conclusion argues that a digitally ready workforce is needed to realise the benefits of digital healthcare. But the Discussion says evidence that such training improves digital programme success is lacking; the paper does not establish that training delivers safer, more efficient, or higher-quality care. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“There are several country-specific national medical curricula that incorporate digital health learning objectives.[43][44][45][46] However, these curricula vary widely and overlook more recently introduced digital health tools such as symptoms checkers and conversational agents (eg, chat bots).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [43] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited sentence attaches the references to the existence of country-specific national medical curricula with digital health learning objectives. The paper’s 'Strengthen health systems' section discusses digital health infrastructure, telehealth and training, but the passages found when searching for medical curricula and learning objectives do not address national medical curricula. The subsequent claim about symptom checkers and conversational agents has no citation attached in the printed sentence. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these 2 frameworks involved experts from a single country in their development, which may limit their wider use.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [47] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and the section on the NIMHD Research Framework describe this paper’s framework and the earlier framework it expands. Neither those passages nor the Discussion identifies the countries of the experts involved in developing the frameworks or says that single-country involvement may limit wider use. Searches for expert involvement, country, and international applicability found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
- Could not verifycites [48] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion > Limitations section discusses database selection, English-language publications, and the lack of detailed study-content analysis—not how two frameworks were developed. Searches for single-country expert panels, framework development, and wider applicability found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Expert agreement percentage is commonly used as the cutoff for consensus in Delphi, 50 with studies using different thresholds ranging from 67% to 80%.[51][52][53]”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Two-Round Delphi Survey
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [50] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods > Data Analyses section gives thresholds for scale reliability and factor analysis, not expert agreement in a Delphi study. Searches for Delphi, expert-agreement cutoffs, and 67%–80% consensus thresholds found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Of those who took part in both rounds (149 participants), 63 (42.6%) were based in high-income countries and 19 (12.8%) in low-income countries (World Bank country income classification).54”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [54] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Data availability section says no data were generated for this article, and the passages retrieved from our copy do not report participants taking part in two rounds. Searches for the participant counts and the World Bank income classifications found no passage supporting the stated figures. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plainn = 149- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 162 learning outcomes retained from round 1 and the 19 newly added learning outcomes, 30 attained more than 70% agreement rates for the mandatory category, while 151 did not reach the 70% agreement rate for any single category (ie, mandatory, elective, or supplementary).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our group identified the following categories: geographic heterogeneity, variation in resources between regions and between institutions in the same region, variance in local needs within a given institution, and the zero-sum nature of the curriculum (ie, adopting new content requires removal of other content).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > 4.4 Precision medicine (5 LOs)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following differentiation of learning outcomes in round 2, 30 learning outcomes emerged as mandatory and 148 as discretionary.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative analysis of 169 free-text suggestions led to rewording of 14 learning outcomes and merging of 6 learning outcomes into 3.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the 2-round Delphi survey and the consensus meeting, a total of 4 domains, 19 competencies, 33 mandatory learning outcomes, and 145 discretionary learning outcomes were included in the final DECODE framework (eAppendix 2 in the Supplement).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Final DECODE Framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The initial list of domains, competencies, and learning outcomes derived from the scoping review and expert consultations is comprehensive enough to cover all relevant digital health competencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In round 2, all newly added items reached the predefined level of consensus and were included in the framework.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next, there was a high number of participating nations with representations from both lower middleincome and low-income countries within the expert panel.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > 4.4 Precision medicine (5 LOs)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this framework, 13 of the 19 competencies have both mandatory and discretionary learning outcomes, while the remaining 6 have only discretionary learning outcomes.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Final DECODE Framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twelve learning outcomes that did not reach the a priori consensus level were removed from the list.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 446 free-text suggestions were received.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following qualitative analysis, 1 competency and 7 learning outcomes associated with this competency were removed, 16 learning outcomes were reorganized and merged (into 8 learning outcomes), 64 learning outcomes were reworded, and 2 new competencies and 19 new learning outcomes were added.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was consideration that some of these might already be addressed in other facets of medical curricula, such as within the purview of public health or bioinformatics.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Inclusion of discretionary learning outcomes
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The consensus panel concurred that the interpretation of the nomenclature used within this framework may vary due to geographical, language, and other differences.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Considerations Elaboration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the consensus panel expressed concern about the potential oversight of these critical domains if not adequately covered in a specific digital health curriculum.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Distinctiveness of digital health
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, several experts recognized the tremendous potential of digital diagnostics in LMICs, highlighting that regions with the scarcest resources stand to gain substantially from the remote capabilities of digital diagnostics.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The consensus panel agreed that the use of working definitions in the preface of the framework would help circumvent these issues.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Considerations Elaboration
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The consensus panel acknowledged that digital health literacy (of health consumers) is a concept that is not universally agreed upon and is difficult to measure and therefore challenging to operationalize.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With most of its associated learning outcomes included as discretionary, our findings aptly reflect the present state of digital diagnostics, wherein most experts acknowledged its relevance in medical education but did not consider it mandatory across all settings.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The consensus panel highlighted the need for a focused approach to distinguish digital health from its nondigital counterparts during the curriculum development process.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Distinctiveness of digital health
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the curriculum implementation perspective, several experts raised concerns on the challenges in incorporating all competencies within this framework into the existing crowded medical curricula and the potential pushback that might arise.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While useful, these frameworks focus mainly on more traditional biomedical informatics-related competencies and do not cover all aspects of digital health.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a clear and urgent need for integration of digital health education into all medical school programs.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Other existing digital health frameworks largely focus on nursing staff in high-income countries settings, 29 limiting their adoption in preregistration medical education (which can be both undergraduate or postgraduate) and in low-and middle-income countries.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Digital health education and training should follow a clearly defined framework of DHCs.29”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further criticism of the Delphi approach lies in its potential constraint when experts are confined to voting on a predetermined list.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority reported having a teaching role (125 participants [83.9%]) and/or research role (109 participants [73.2%]), while one-half of them had a clinical role (76 participants [51.0%]).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plainn = 149- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They were selected to represent a range of roles within medical education, diverse medical fields, and global geographic locations.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Consensus Meeting and Postmeeting Activities
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative analysis of the free-text suggestions was performed independently by 2 reviewers (O.C.O. and T.E.F.), and discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (J.C.).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Two-Round Delphi Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consensus was reached through discussion.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Consensus Meeting and Postmeeting Activities
plaindirectn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“A total of 30 DHC frameworks and 28 common digital health domains were identified, and a varied focus across health professions was noted with only 1 framework developed specifically for preregistration medical education.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Identification of the Initial Set of Relevant DHCs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequently, 2 pilots were carried out.The survey questionnaire and the identified list of domains, competencies, and learning outcomes were distributed among the core group for an extensive review.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Identification of the Initial Set of Relevant DHCs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and followed the Accurate Consensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because priorities in digital health training of future physicians in these settings may differ, the involvement of experts from these countries enhanced the framework's broader applicability and led to advocacy for elevating and incorporating digital health equity within the competencies (eg, digital determinants of health).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > 4.4 Precision medicine (5 LOs)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study was approved by Nanyang Technological University institutional review board”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The substantial presence of institutional leadership among Delphi participants enriched the framework with their strategic insights, ensured its alignment with broader educational and organizational needs, and may facilitate its adoption within their respective institutions.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > 4.4 Precision medicine (5 LOs)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Detailed information on the purpose of the study and the roles of each panelist were provided before written informed consent was obtained online.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Two-Round Delphi Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to develop a curriculum for digital health medical education at a global scale.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, 211 individuals participated in round 1 of the survey, and 149 participated in round 2 (70.6% of participants from round 1).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plainn = 211- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost two-thirds of the participants (91 participants [61.1%]) reported clinical medicine as their primary professional background.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plainn = 91- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Items with a marginal percentage of agreement (ie, 60.0%-69.9%)were highlighted and discussed.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Consensus Meeting and Postmeeting Activities
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the Delphi survey and consensus meeting, several areas of debate arose.These discussions suggest highly relevant topics that stakeholders in medical education and health care should consider when developing or implementing digital health curricula in medical institutions.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Additional Considerations for Medical Educators
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority (140 participants [94.0%]) also worked in a university, and more than one-half of them (83 participants [55.7%]) worked in a clinical setting.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plainn = 149- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately one-third (47 participants [31.5%]) reported holding an institutional leadership position, such as president or chancellor of university, dean or vice dean of medical school, or chief medical officer of hospital.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plainn = 47- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A virtual consensus meeting was held in September 2023 and involved 12 participants (16 invited) who had taken part in rounds 1 and 2, and 2 members of the core group (meeting chair and notetaker).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Consensus Meeting and Postmeeting Activities
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four digital health researchers screened competencies against predefined eligibility criteria (eTable 1 in the Supplement).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Identification of the Initial Set of Relevant DHCs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For an item to be included in the DHC framework, a prespecified combined rating (agree and strongly agree) of at least 70% of the participants (excluding blank votes and abstentions) had to be achieved.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Two-Round Delphi Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive and actionable international DHC framework for medical education.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An iterative sampling method was used to create a diverse expert panel for the Delphi study.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Two-Round Delphi Survey
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the absence of a neutral option in the Likert scale may have inadvertently forced the respondents to select either a positive or negative response despite their ambivalence; this could have introduced response bias.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Health data science
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The framework is based on findings of a scoping review, 29 expert consultations, a 2-round Delphi survey, a consensus meeting, and postmeeting qualitative feedback.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Survey participants were from 79 countries and territories in round 1 and 68 countries in round 2, with representation from all 6 WHO regions and all 4 World Bank country income groups (eFigure in the Supplement).”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
plainn = 211- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assumption that this curriculum would cover datarelated domains comprehensively could possibly lead to displacement and neglect of these essential aspects of data handling in other educational domains, such as population health.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Distinctiveness of digital health
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The international composition of the Delphi expert panel provided a balanced perspective on digital health technologies and digital health inequities, leading to the segregation of learning outcomes into mandatory and discretionary categories to enhance their applicability in diverse educational settings.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More recently, digital health literacy was acknowledged as a superdeterminant of health with civic, digital, and health literacies as its 3 building blocks.70”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [70]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This could be achieved by focusing on foundational concepts and skills that will support medical students through clinical practice in lieu of technical skills that are likely to change as technology evolves.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adaptable to each country's specific needs and contexts, this approach ensures both relevance and flexibility in curriculum design.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, introducing these competencies might result in redundancy.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Inclusion of discretionary learning outcomes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This framework will play an enabling role in assisting individual medical institutions in developing and introducing digital health learning outcomes and appropriate learning opportunities into curricula for medical students.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To mitigate this, free-text responses were allowed in the survey for experts to propose additional items, which has proven to be invaluable.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Integration of this framework into curriculum design can assist in better preparing future physicians for the ongoing digital transformation in health care.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, within the scope of this study, we included all domains deemed pertinent to the domain of digital health, irrespective of their potential intersection with other disciplines, to provide medical educators globally with a comprehensive framework for consideration.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Inclusion of discretionary learning outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“While some argue that digital health literacy is the convergence of digital literacy and health literacy, 66 which are 2 different constructs, they are nonetheless equally important in the context of digital health.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the presumption that certain competencies might already be encompassed elsewhere or an optimistic anticipation of their coverage within other curricula poses the risk of inadvertent oversight of these competencies.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Inclusion of discretionary learning outcomes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conundrum lies within balancing the enthusiasm to cover all relevant domains with the practicality of curriculum implementation to ensure that all essential items are effectively integrated into the curriculum.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the pervasiveness of digitalization in health care, digital health curricula might become the default standard for anything related to data.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Distinctiveness of digital health
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Health and digital literacy are both well-established determinants of health.[67][68][69]”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [69] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The use of an integrated or cross-domain curriculum approach, such as in planetary health, may also facilitate implementation by expanding existing content to accommodate digital health domains.74”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [74]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the challenges in creating digital health competencies for a global audience is the need to use meaningful terminology, given the diverse national and local approaches to curriculum design, terminology, and practices.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Considerations Elaboration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Placing too much emphasis on general concepts applicable to both digital and nondigital contexts risks diluting the distinctiveness of digital health.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Distinctiveness of digital health
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Some fundamental principles, such as data privacy and security, have already existed in the predigital era and are not exclusive to digital health.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are several terminology schemes used in curriculum and instructional design in medical education globally, and these vary depending on the region, location, and organization.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Considerations Elaboration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] source
- Not matchedcites [60]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [61]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This speaks to the importance of digital health literacy as a concept that should be understood and considered by all who practice modern medicine because it affects patients' access to digital health services, 71 health-related behaviors, 72 and health outcomes.73”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [71]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [72]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [73]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With limited exposure and little hands-on practice, medical students may have difficulty grasping the use of these platforms.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, educators who lack clinical experience in using digital diagnostics may not be confident and competent to educate students on these technologies.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notwithstanding the potential benefits of digital diagnostics, the discourse around the feasibility and costs associated with setting up these platforms for educational purposes, along with how learners can effectively demonstrate the requisite competencies, is likely to persist for years to come.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This variation emphasizes the need for clarity, refinement, and consensus around language in the field of digital health.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Considerations Elaboration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The use of terms such as competencies, outcomes, and objectives is widespread, but the way these terms are defined, used, and understood varies around the world.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is also relevant for institutions that offer dual-degree programs such as MD-MBA (business), MD-JD (law), MD-MPH (public health), and MD-PhD, where some aspects of the DECODE framework might be covered in the combined degree program but not within the medical curriculum.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Inclusion of discretionary learning outcomes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In published literature, the terms digital health literacy, digital literacy, and eHealth literacy have been used to denote a common or substantially similar concept, [62][63][64] and these terms are sometimes used interchangeably.65”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Concept of digital health literacy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [62]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [63]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [64] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the research team attempted to identify all possible options through the preliminary work (scoping review, iterative expert consultations, and piloting) leading up to the initial item list, exhaustiveness of the list could not be guaranteed.”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Socioeconomic inequities in digital health education
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The expert panel's diversity and consensus are sufficient to ensure the framework's applicability and relevance to a global audience.
“The consensus process garnered an international panel of experts with diverse professional backgrounds, leadership roles in medical education, and geographical locations to ensure the framework's applicability and relevance to a global audience.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The initial list of domains, competencies, and learning outcomes derived from the scoping review and expert consultations is comprehensive enough to cover all relevant digital health competencies.
“The initial list of domains, competencies, and learning outcomes was based on findings from a 2020 scoping review of relevant international medical literature, 29 which analyzed existing DHC frameworks used by health care professionals”
The paper relies on this without support.
The use of terms such as competencies, outcomes, and objectives is widespread, but the way these terms are defined, used, and understood varies around the world.
“The use of terms such as competencies, outcomes, and objectives is widespread, but the way these terms are defined, used, and understood varies around the world.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some fundamental principles, such as data privacy and security, have already existed in the predigital era and are not exclusive to digital health.
“This emphasis arises from the recognition that some fundamental principles, such as data privacy and security, have already existed in the predigital era and are not exclusive to digital health.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“AI literacy is essential to ensure that healthcare professionals can use these tools consciously and responsibly [7].”
From AI policy in healthcare: a checklist-based methodology for structured implementation (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The domain “Patient confidentiality, privacy and dignity” was most frequently mentioned in the literature review on PSM (41–44, 48, 58), indicating that it is important to have a basic domain of competencies in PSM.”
From Identifying social media professionalism competencies in Vietnamese medical students: a modified Delphi method (2026) · cites this paper as [58]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Methods
“Round 1 Delphi survey: 221 participants rated each of the 4 domains, 18 competencies, and 189 associated learning outcomes as strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree”
§ The Digital Health Competencies in Medical Education Framework An International Consensus Statement Based on a Delphi Study > Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting
“In total, 211 individuals participated in round 1 of the survey, and 149 participated in round 2 (70.6% of participants from round 1).”
Citations
Cites
Jünger, S., Payne, S. A., Brine, J., Radbruch, L., & Brearley, S. G. (2017) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216317690685 · Cited by 2,210
The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence
Monaghesh, E., & Hajizadeh, A. (2020) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09301-4 · Cited by 1,941
Understanding and Responding to Health Literacy as a Social Determinant of Health
Nutbeam, D., & Lloyd, J. E. (2021) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102529 · Cited by 1,178
Vasey, B., Nagendran, M., Campbell, B., Clifton, D. A., Collins, G. S., Denaxas, S., Denniston, A. K., Faes, L., Geerts, B., Ibrahim, M., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9 · Cited by 1,039
Self-citationThe State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
Shaver, J. (2022) · Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice · doi:10.1016/j.pop.2022.04.002 · Cited by 863
Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare professionals
do Nascimento, I. J. B., Abdulazeem, H. M., Vasanthan, L., Martínez, E. Z., Zucoloto, M. L., Østengaard, L., Muscat, N. A., Zapata, T., & Novillo-Ortiz, D. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00899-4 · Cited by 829
van der Vaart, R., & Drossaert, C. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6709 · Cited by 687
Vasey, B., Nagendran, M., Campbell, B., Clifton, D. A., Collins, G. S., Denaxas, S., Denniston, A. K., Faes, L., Geerts, B., Ibrahim, M., et al. (2022) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-070904 · Cited by 665
Self-citationA framework for digital health equity
Richardson, S., Lawrence, K., Schoenthaler, A. M., & Mann, D. (2022) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00663-0 · Cited by 607
Self-citationDigital inclusion as a social determinant of health
Sieck, C. J., Sheon, A., Ancker, J. S., Castek, J., Callahan, B., & Siefer, A. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00413-8 · Cited by 597
Englander, R., Cameron, T., Ballard, A. J., Dodge, J., Bull, J., & Aschenbrener, C. A. (2013) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31829a3b2b · Cited by 565
Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals
Albarqouni, L., Hoffmann, T., Straus, S. E., Olsen, N. R., Young, T., Ilić, D., Shaneyfelt, T. M., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G. H., & Glasziou, P. (2018) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281 · Cited by 463
The Medical School Objectives Writing Group (1999) · Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · doi:10.1097/00001888-199901000-00010 · Cited by 452
New technologies, new disparities: The intersection of electronic health and digital health literacy
Smith, B., & Magnani, J. W. (2019) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.05.066 · Cited by 446
Reeves, J. J., Hollandsworth, H. M., Torriani, F. J., Taplitz, R., Abeles, S., Tai-Seale, M., Millen, M., Clay, B. J., & Longhurst, C. A. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa037 · Cited by 429
Self-citationDigital literacy as a new determinant of health: A scoping review
Arias López, M. D. P., Ong, B. A., Borrat Frigola, X., Fernández, A. L., Hicklent, R. S., Obeles, A. J. T., Rocimo, A. M., & Celi, L. A. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000279 · Cited by 422
Kim, K., Shin, S., Kim, S., & Lee, E. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/40778 · Cited by 361
Digital health literacy as a super determinant of health: More than simply the sum of its parts
van Kessel, R., Wong, B. L. H., Clemens, T., & Brand, H. (2022) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100500 · Cited by 358
Ammenwerth, E., Demiris, G., Hasman, A., Haux, R., Hersh, W., Hovenga, E. J. S., Lun, K. C., Marín, H. S. V., Martin-Sanchez, F. J., Wright, G., et al. (2010) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me5119 · Cited by 319
Telemedicine Training in Undergraduate Medical Education: Mixed-Methods Review
Waseh, S., & Dicker, A. P. (2019) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/12515 · Cited by 291
Healthcare staff digital literacy levels and their attitudes towards information systems
Kuek, A., & Hakkennes, S. (2020) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458219839613 · Cited by 256
A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks
Nazeha, N., Pavagadhi, D., Kyaw, B. M., Car, J., Jiménez, G., & Car, L. T. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22706 · Cited by 245
Self-citationA Delphi Study to Determine Informatics Competencies for Nurses at Four Levels of Practice
Staggers, N., Gassert, C. A., & Curran, C. R. (2002) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-200211000-00006 · Cited by 244
A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat
Lazarus, J. V., Romero, D., Kopka, C. J., Karim, S. A., Abu-Raddad, L. J., Almeida, G., Baptista-Leite, R., Barocas, J. A., Barreto, M. L., Bar-Yam, Y., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05398-2 · Cited by 226
Informatics Competencies for Nurses at Four Levels of Practice
Staggers, N., Gassert, C. A., & Curran, C. R. (2001) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/0148-4834-20011001-05 · Cited by 202
Perceptions of Digital Health Education Among European Medical Students: Mixed Methods Survey
Machleid, F., Kaczmarczyk, R., Johann, D., Balčiūnas, J., Atienza-Carbonell, B., von Maltzahn, F., & Mosch, L. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19827 · Cited by 190
Digital Health Literacy: Bibliometric Analysis
Yang, K., Hu, Y., & Qi, H. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/35816 · Cited by 188
Hilty, D. M., Crawford, A., Teshima, J., Chan, S., Sunderji, N., Yellowlees, P. M., Kramer, G., O'neill, P., Fore, C., Luo, J., et al. (2015) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1091292 · Cited by 170
Gonzalo, J. D., Dekhtyar, M., Starr, S. R., Borkan, J., Brunett, P. H., Fancher, T. L., Green, J., Grethlein, S. J., Lai, C. J., Lawson, L. E., et al. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001177 · Cited by 168
Pelikan, J. M., Ganahl, K., & Roethlin, F. (2018) · Global Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/1757975918788300 · Cited by 147
Digital health competencies in medical school education: a scoping review and Delphi method study
Khurana, M. P., Raaschou-Pedersen, D. E., Kurtzhals, J., Bardram, J. E., Ostrowski, S. R., & Bundgaard, J. S. (2022) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03163-7 · Cited by 129
Knaup, P., & Haux, R. (2000) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634340 · Cited by 126
Bichel‐Findlay, J., Koch, S., Mantas, J., Syed-Abdul, S., Al-Shorbaji, N., Ammenwerth, E., Baum, A., Borycki, E. M., Demiris, G., Hasman, A., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104908 · Cited by 122
Self-citationArtificial intelligence in medical education curriculum: An e-Delphi study for competencies
Çalışkan, S. A., Demir, K., & Karaca, O. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271872 · Cited by 115
Poncette, A.-S., Glauert, D. L., Mosch, L. K., Braune, K., Balzer, F., & Back, D. A. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22161 · Cited by 107
Self-citationDigital health training programs for medical students: scoping review
Tudor Car, L., Kyaw, B. M., Nannan Panday, R. S., van der Kleij, R., Chavannes, N., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2021) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/28275 · Cited by 106
Self-citationJidkov, L., Alexander, M., Bark, P., Williams, J. G., Kay, J., Taylor, P., Hemingway, H., & Banerjee, A. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025460 · Cited by 77
Yaghobian, S., Ohannessian, R., Iampetro, T., Riom, I., Salles, N., de Bustos, E. M., Moulin, T., & Mathieu-Fritz, A. (2022) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x20926829 · Cited by 76
Development and Validation of Digital Health Technology Literacy Assessment Questionnaire
Yoon, J., Lee, M., Ahn, J. S., Oh, D., Shin, S.-Y., Chang, Y. J., & Cho, J. (2022) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-022-01800-8 · Cited by 74
Mantas, J., Ammenwerth, E., Demiris, G., Hasman, A., Haux, R., Hersh, W., Hovenga, E. J. S., Lun, K. C., Marin, H. F., Martin-Sanchez, F. J., et al. (2011) · European Journal for Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.24105/ejbi.2011.07.2.2 · Cited by 71
Essential skills for a medical teacher: an introduction to teaching and learning in medicine
Cho, A.-R. (2014) · Korean journal of medical education · doi:10.3946/kjme.2014.26.4.335 · Cited by 68
Dattakumar, A., Kathleen, G., Butler-Henderson, K. A., et al. (2012) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-078-9-33 · Cited by 61
National survey of telemedicine education and training in medical schools in France
Yaghobian, S., Ohannessian, R., Mathieu-Fritz, A., & Moulin, T. (2019) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x18820374 · Cited by 57
Egbert, N., Thye, J., Hackl, W. O., Müller‐Staub, M., Ammenwerth, E., & Hübner, U. (2018) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.1080/17538157.2018.1497635 · Cited by 55
Hübner, U., Thye, J., Shaw, T., Elias, B. L., Egbert, N., Saranto, K., Babitsch, B., Procter, P. M., & Ball, M. J. (2019) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti190420 · Cited by 49
Edirippulige, S., Gong, S., Hathurusinghe, M., Jhetam, S., Kirk, J., Lao, H., Leikvold, A., Ruelcke, J. E., Yau, N. C., Zhang, Q., et al. (2020) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x20932436 · Cited by 49
Educating medical students as competent users of health information technologies: the MSOP data.
McGowan, J. J., Passiment, M., & Hoffman, H. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 47
Brockes, C., Grischott, T., Dutkiewicz, M., & Schmidt-Weitmann, S. (2017) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2017.0011 · Cited by 46
Zehra, T., Parwani, A., Abdul-Ghafar, J., & Ahmad, Z. (2023) · Diagnostic Pathology · doi:10.1186/s13000-023-01352-6 · Cited by 43
Ma, M., Li, Y., Gao, L., Xie, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Liu, X., Jiang, D., Fan, C., et al. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04407-w · Cited by 42
Health informatics in UK Medical Education: an online survey of current practice
Walpole, S. C., Taylor, P., & Banerjee, A. (2016) · JRSM Open · doi:10.1177/2054270416682674 · Cited by 40
Medizin im digitalen Zeitalter: Telemedizin in der studentischen Lehre
Kuhn, S., & Jungmann, F. (2018) · Der Radiologe · doi:10.1007/s00117-017-0351-7 · Cited by 40
Informatics competencies for nursing and healthcare leaders.
Westra, B. L., Delaney, C. W., & Delaney, C. W. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 39
Digital health understanding and preparedness of medical students: a cross-sectional study
Baumgartner, M., Sauer, C., Blagec, K., & Dorffner, G. (2022) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2022.2114851 · Cited by 39
Self-citationA qualitative case study of ehealth and digital literacy experiences of pharmacy staff
MacLure, K., & Stewart, D. (2018) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.07.001 · Cited by 34
Nutrition Informatics Competencies across All Levels of Practice: A National Delphi Study
Ayres, E. J., Greer-Carney, J. L., McShane, P. E. F., et al. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.025 · Cited by 25
(2009) · PubMed · Cited by 23
Digital competencies for Singapore’s national medical school curriculum: a qualitative study
Zainal, H., Xin, X., Thumboo, J., & Yong, F. K. (2023) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2023.2211820 · Cited by 23
Essential Skills for a Medical Teacher. An Introduction to Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 2ed
Harden, R. M., & Laidlaw, J. M. (2020) · Essential Skills for a Medical Teacher. An Introduction to Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 2ed · doi:10.33029/9704-5958-4-2021-kln-1-376 · Cited by 23
Digital competencies in medical education in Switzerland: an overview of the current situation
Hautz, S. C., Hoffmann, M., Exadaktylos, A. K., Hautz, W. E., & Sauter, T. C. (2020) · PubMed Central · doi:10.3205/zma001355 · Cited by 22
What Are Inter-Professional eHealth Competencies?
Thye, J., Shaw, T., Jens, H., et al. (2018) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-896-9-201 · Cited by 15
Kaufman, D. M., & Jennett, P. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 10
An Iterative Methodology for Developing National Recommendations for Nursing Informatics Curricula
Egbert, N., Thye, J., Schulte, G., et al. (2016) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-678-1-660 · Cited by 9
Machleid, F., Kaczmarczyk, R., Johann, D., et al. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.19827 · Cited by 5
Poncette, A.-S., Glauert, D. L., Mosch, L. K., et al. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.22161 · Cited by 2
Self-citationKaufman David, M., & Jennett Penny, A. (1997) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-883-0-543 · Cited by 1
Baumgartner, M., Sauer, C., Blagec, K., & Dorffner, G. (2022) · doi:10.2196/preprints.37096
Self-citationDigital Health Literacy: Bibliometric Analysis (Preprint)
Yang, K., Hu, Y., & Qi, H. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.35816
Informatics competencies for nursing leaders
Westra, B. L., & Delaney, C. W. (2007) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2007.05.005
Ma, M., Li, Y., Gao, L., Xie, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Liu, X., Jiang, D., Fan, C., et al. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04613-6
Digital Health Training Programs for Medical Students: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Car, L. T., Kyaw, B. M., Panday, R. S. N., van der Kleij, R., Chavannes, N., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.28275
Self-citationTelemedicine Training in Undergraduate Medical Education: Mixed-Methods Review (Preprint)
Waseh, S., & Dicker, A. P. (2018) · doi:10.2196/preprints.12515
Anthony, O., & Andre, K. (2009) · Studies in Health Technology and Informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-58603-979-0-62
A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks (Preprint)
Nazeha, N., Pavagadhi, D., Kyaw, B. M., Car, J., Jimenez, G., & Car, L. T. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.22706
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Australian Medical Council Limited. Review of accreditation standards for primary medical programs (medical school standards review). July 2023. Accessed November 20, 2024. https://www.amc.org.au/accredited-organisations/review-of-accreditation-standards-for-primary-medical-programs/
- Honeyman? M, Maguire? D, Evans? H, Davies? A. Digital technology and health inequalities: a scoping review (Wales). Health Inequalities. Published 2020. Accessed November 20, 2024. https://health-inequalities.eu/jwddb/digital-technology-and-health-inequalities-a-scoping-review-wales/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Educational Strategies for Clinical Supervision of Artificial Intelligence Use
Abdulnour, R.-E. E., Gin, B., & Boscardin, C. K. (2025) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra2503232 · Cited by 209
AI, Health, and Health Care Today and Tomorrow: The JAMA Summit Report on Artificial Intelligence
Angus, D. C., Khera, R., Lieu, T., Liu, V., Ahmad, F. S., Anderson, B., Bhavani, S. V., Bindman, A., Brennan, T., Celi, L. A., et al. (2025) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.18490 · Cited by 195
Self-citationLearning health system strategies in the AI era
Steel, P. A. D., Wardi, G., Harrington, R. A., & Longhurst, C. (2025) · npj Health Systems · doi:10.1038/s44401-025-00029-0 · Cited by 29
Self-citationArtificial Intelligence Literacy and Its Associated Factors Among Nursing Students
Jiang, Z., Liu, Q., Jiang, N., Ning, M., & Yu, Q. (2025) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000001989 · Cited by 29
AI policy in healthcare: a checklist-based methodology for structured implementation
Bignami, E., Darhour, L. J., Franco, G., Guarnieri, M., & Bellini, V. (2025) · Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s44158-025-00278-3 · Cited by 23
“AI literacy is essential to ensure that healthcare professionals can use these tools consciously and responsibly [7].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Car, J., Ong, Q. C., Erlikh Fox, T., Leightley, D., Kemp, S. J., Švab, I., Tsoi, K. K. F., Sam, A. H., Kent, F. M., Hertelendy, A. J., Longhurst, C. A., Powell, J., Hamdy, H., Nguyen, H. V. Q., Aoun Bahous, S., Wang, M., Baumgartner, M., Mahendradhata, Y., Popovic, N., Khong, A. W. H., Prober, C. G., Atun, R., Collaborative, D. H. S., Bekele Zerihun, A., Poncette, A.-S., Molina, A. J. R., Ferreira, A. V. L., Fajkić, A., Kaushal, A., Farmer, A. J., Lane, A. S., Kononowicz, A. A., Bhongir, A. V., Alayande, B. T., Bene, B. A., Dameff, C. J., Hallensleben, C., Back, D. A., Hawezy, D. J., Tulantched, D. S. M., Kldiashvili, E., Achampong, E. K., Ramachandran, G., Hauser, G., Grove, J., Cheung, J. P. Y., Imaralu, J. O., Sotunsa, J. O., Bulnes Vides, J. P., Lawrence, K. S., Agha-Mir-Salim, L., Saba, L., Zhang, L., Elfiky, M. M. A., Hesseling, M. W., Guppy, M. P., Phatak, M. S., Al Saadoon, M. A. A., Lai, N. M., Chavannes, N. H., Kimberger, O., Povoa, P., Goh, P.-S., Grainger, R., Nannan Panday, R. S., Forsyth, R., Vento, S., Lee, S. Y., Yadav, S. K., Syed-Abdul, S., Appenzeller, S., Denaxas, S., Garba, S. E., Flügge, T., Bokun, T., Dissanayake, V. H. W., Ho, V., & Obadiel, Y. A.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- University of Ljubljana (SI)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Monash University (AU)
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Gulf Medical University (AE)
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam
- Lebanese American University School of Medicine, Byblos, Lebanon
- Peking University (CN)
- Medical University of Vienna (AT)
- Universitas Gadjah Mada (ID)
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro
- Stanford University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Global Health Equity (RW)
- University of Global Health Equity, Kigali, Rwanda
- Philippine General Hospital (PH)
- University of Sarajevo (BA)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
- Koya University (IQ)
- Université Protestante au Congo (CD)
- Department of Family Medicine, Université Protestante au Congo, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
- University of Cape Coast (GH)
- University of Rijeka (HR)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Babcock University (NG)
- Central American Technological University, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
- New York University (US)
- University of Cagliari (IT)
- Cairo University (EG)
- Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin (IE)
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur (IN)
- Department of Child Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Seeb, Oman
- Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety (AT)
- Nova Medical School, Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
- Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- University of Puthisastra (KH)
- Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College (IN)
- Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
- University College London (GB)
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- University Hospital Dubrava (HR)
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- Sana'a University (YE)
- Corresponding author
- Car, Josip
- Ong, Qi Chwen
- ORCID
- Car, Josip
- Ong, Qi Chwen
- Leightley, Daniel
- Švab, Igor
- Tsoi, Kelvin K. F.
- Sam, Amir H.
- Kent, Fiona M.
- Hertelendy, Attila J.
- Powell, John
- Hamdy, Hossam
- Wang, Mai
- Baumgartner, Martin
- Mahendradhata, Yodi
- Khong, Andy W. H.
- Prober, Charles G.
- Atun, Rifat
- Poncette, Akira-Sebastian
- Molina, Al Joseph R.
- Ferreira, Albano V.L.
- Fajkić, Almir
- Kaushal, Amit
- Kononowicz, Andrzej A.
- Bhongir, Aparna V.
- Alayande, Barnabas T.
- Bene, Benard Ayaka
- Dameff, Christian J.
- Hallensleben, Cynthia
- Back, David A.
- Hawezy, Dawan J.
- Kldiashvili, Ekaterina
- Achampong, Emmanuel K.
- Ramachandran, Ganesh
- Hauser, Goran
- Grove, Jakob
- Cheung, Jason P. Y.
- Imaralu, John O.
- Sotunsa, John O.
- Lawrence, Katharine S.
- Agha-Mir-Salim, Louis
- Saba, Luca
- Zhang, Luxia
- Elfiky, Mahmoud M. A.
- Guppy, Michelle P.
- Phatak, Mrunal S.
- Lai, Nai Ming
- Chavannes, Niels H.
- Kimberger, Oliver
- Goh, Poh-Sun
- Grainger, Rebecca
- Forsyth, Rowena
- Vento, Sandro
- Lee, Sang Yeoup
- Yadav, Sanjay Kumar
- Syed-Abdul, Shabbir
- Appenzeller, Simone
- Denaxas, Spiros
- Garba, Stephen Ekundayo
- Flügge, Tabea
- Bokun, Tomislav
- Dissanayake, Vajira H. W.
- Ho, Vincent
- Obadiel, Yasser A.
- Venue
- JAMA Network Open
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2025-01-31
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e2453131
- ISSN
- 2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4407010033
- Semantic Scholar
- 886a523dd73746b55d374d6226b8036d184fa285
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 112 · 2025: 42
- FWCI
- 127.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository of the University of Ljubljana (University of Ljubljana) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- dCOBISS.SI Digital Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- New University of Lisbon's Repository (New University of Lisbon) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Harvard University
- Florida International University
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
- Gulf Medical University
- Lebanese American University
- University of Oxford
- Nanyang Technological University
- Universität Wien
- Medizinische Universität Wien
- Peking University
- Universitas Gadjah Mada
- Đại học Huế
- University of California, San Diego
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital literacy in education
- Keywords
- digital health competencies, medical education, competency framework, learning outcomes, digital health literacy, health information systems, health data science, digitalization of healthcare
- MeSH terms
- Digital Health, Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Delphi Technique, Education, Medical, Humans, Consensus
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-15, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-15 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
