Digital Health Technology in Asthma: A Comprehensive Scoping Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A variety of digital intervention approaches have been investigated for asthma therapy during the past decade, with different levels of interactivity and personalization and a range of impacts on different outcome measurements. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of digital interventions in asthma with regard to acceptability and outcomes and evaluate the potential of digital initiatives for monitoring or treating patients with asthma. METHODS: We evaluated digital interventions using a scoping review methodology through a literature search and review. Of 871 articles identified, 121 were evaluated to explore intervention characteristics, the perception and acceptability of digital interventions to patients and physicians, and effects on asthma outcomes. Interventions were categorized by their level of interactivity with the patient. RESULTS: Interventions featuring non-individualized content sent to patients appeared capable of promoting improved adherence to inhaled corticosteroids, but with no identified improvement in asthma burden; and data-gathering interventions appeared to have little effect on adherence or asthma burden. Evidence of improvement in both adherence and patients' impairment due to asthma were seen only with interactive interventions involving two-way responsive patient communication. Digital interventions were generally positively perceived by patients and physicians. Implementation was considered feasible, with certain preferences for design and features important to drive use. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health interventions show substantial promise for asthma disease monitoring and personalization of treatment. To be successful, future interventions will need to include both inhaler device and software elements, combining accurate measurement of clinical parameters with careful consideration of ease of use, personalization, and patient engagement aspects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
None of the existing systematic reviews focused on the role of 2-way asynchronous communication between patients and health care professionals.
“However, none of these reviews focused on the role of 2-way asynchronous communication between patients and health care professionals.”
From Effectiveness and Acceptability of Asynchronous Digital Health in Asthma Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 141 · Cited by 117
- Authors
- Mosnaim, G., Safioti, G., Brown, R., DePietro, M., Szefler, S. J., Lang, D. M., Portnoy, J. M., Bukstein, D. A., Bacharier, L. B., & Merchant, R. K.
- Affiliations
- Endeavor Health (US)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals (Netherlands) (NL)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
- Children's Hospital Colorado (US)
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Children's Mercy Hospital (US)
- Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital (US)
- Dignity Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- DePietro, Michael
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2377-2398
- ISSN
- 2213-2198 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3135447432
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 141
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Novartis
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
- Sanofi
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc
- AstraZeneca
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Genentech
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- asthma, digital health interventions, digital therapeutics, inhaled corticosteroid adherence, asthma burden, patient acceptability, interactive intervention, personalized treatment, patient engagement, asthma monitoring, inhaler devices
- MeSH terms
- Adrenal Cortex Hormones, Asthma, Humans, Nebulizers and Vaporizers, Biomedical Technology
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.
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