Evaluating digital health tools in chronic disease management effectiveness

International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 244 Evaluating digital health tools in chronic disease management effectiveness Adeyinka G. Ologun 1,2 , Olajide O, Olajojo 3 , Rukayat Abisola Olawale 4 , Ijeoma Chioma Mordi 5 , Ngozi Blessing Umoru 6 , Sandra A Palmer 7 , Rita Bongnwi Menchak 8 Olatunji Bolanle Blessing 9 1 Department of Business School, University of Wolverhampton Business School, England, United Kingdom. 2 Faculty of Business and Media, Selinus University of Sciences and Literature, Italy. 3 Department of Economics, Faculty of Education, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria 4 School of Management Sciences, Babcock University, Ilishan Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria, 5 Department of Information, Intellectual Property Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria 6 Department of Social Science Education, University of No ttingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom 7 Department of Social Science Education, Leading Learning & Teaching, The University of Dundee, U.K. 8Department of Guidance and Counselling, Faculty of Education, Nasarawa State University, Nigeria, [email protected]om 9 Department of Marketing, Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin, Nigeria *Corresponding author, E-mail: olawaleabisola3[email protected] ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ©2025 RS Publication Paper ID: IJASTR69265BCD9384E Published: 2025-12-20 DOI: https://dx.doi.org /10.5281/zenodo.17 999815 Page No: 244-262 This study evaluated the effectiveness of digital health tools—including mobile applications, wearable devices, and telehealth platforms—in managing chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. It also assessed patient and healthcare provider perspectives on the usability and acceptance of these technologies. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining a systematic review of 240 peer-reviewed studies (2015–2025) with thematic synthesis of provider and patient feedback. Quantitative analysis indicated that digital health interventions improved medication adherence by 32% and reduced average blood pressure by 8.6% across controlled trials. Approximately 78% of patients reported increased self-management confidence, while 70% of healthcare providers viewed DHIs as effective complements to routine care. However, data privacy concerns (reported in 72% of studies) and low digital literacy (58%) limited full-scale adoption. The overall methodological error margin was ±3.9 %, primarily due to reporting bias and sample heterogeneity. The findings confirm that digital tools significantly enhance chronic disease outcomes when combined with training, personalisation, and robust privacy safeguards. Keywords: Digital Health, Chronic Disease Management, Mobile Health (mHealth), Telehealth, Patient Engagement, Health Technology Adoption. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954 Cite This Paper: Adeyinka G. Ologun, Olajide O, Olajojo, Rukayat Abisola Olawale, Ijeoma Chioma Mordi, Ngozi Blessing Umoru, Sandra A Palmer, Rita Bongnwi Menchak and Olatunji Bolanle Blessing (2025). "Evaluating digital health tools in chronic disease management effectiveness". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH (IJASTR), vol. 15, no. 6, 2025, pp. 244 - 262. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17999815 International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 245 1. Introduction Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory conditions represent a significant challenge to global health systems, accounting for the majority of adult morbidity and mortality worldwide. For instance, recent evidence indicates that approximately one in three adults lives with multiple chronic conditions, which complicates management and increases healthcare utilisation. [1] In response, digital health innovations—including mobile health (mHealth), telemedicine and eHealth platforms—have emerged as promising strategies to support self-management, remote monitoring and patient-provider interaction. [2] The promise of digital health solutions lies in their potential to improve access, efficiency, and the personalisation of chronic disease care. For example, digital interventions can enable continuous monitoring of physiological parameters, facilitate timely feedback and empower patients to engage in self-management behaviours. [3] Moreover, the expansion of mobile devices and internet connectivity has made these interventions increasingly viable across diverse settings [4]. However, despite the enthusiasm, the real-world uptake and demonstrable impact of digital health for chronic disease management remain inconsistent. A scoping review found that while digital health’s potential is acknowledged, meaningful implementation and evaluation in practice are still limited. [5] The implementation gap is critical: many studies focus on patient-level outcomes and technological feasibility but overlook service-level outcomes such as workflow efficiency, provider burden, and cost-effectiveness. For example, 98% of studies in one review of digital interventions for chronic disease management did not assess service outcomes. [6] In addition, few interventions are grounded in implementation science frameworks, which may reduce their scalability and sustainability. This gap is of particular concern in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) and resource-constrained settings, where health systems face additional structural and socioeconomic barriers. [7] Another major concern is user adoption and engagement. While digital health solutions offer new avenues for care, users’ digital literacy, trust in technology, and preferences for in-person consultations continue to influence uptake and effectiveness. For example, a systematic review International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 246 found that challenges such as technological illiteracy and a lack of personalisation hampered engagement among users with chronic conditions. [8] A further barrier is the equity dimension, where individuals from lower socioeconomic groups face greater digital access constraints, potentially exacerbating health disparities if digital health is not designed with inclusion in mind. [9] Given this context, there is a pressing need to move beyond technology novelty and explore how digital health interventions can be systematically implemented, evaluated and scaled in ways that deliver both clinical and service-delivery benefits. The literature highlights several critical issues: the need for theory-linked intervention design; measurement of a broader array of outcomes; attention to implementation strategies (training, stakeholder engagement, audit and feedback); and equitable access and usability for diverse populations. [10] Therefore, this research aims to investigate the implementation and impact of a digital health intervention for chronic disease management with attention to both patient outcomes and service delivery metrics, in a resource-constrained environment. Specifically, this study will examine: (a) the type and intensity of implementation strategies used in deploying the intervention; (b) measures of user engagement, health outcomes (e.g., blood-pressure control, glycemic control) and service outcomes (such as appointment no-shows, consultation time); and (c) the barriers and facilitators experienced by patients and providers in the setting. Our goal is to generate evidence that addresses existing gaps in digital health research and to inform future scaling of sustainable interventions in similar contexts. By focusing on both implementation and outcome dimensions, this study contributes to the evolving evidence base in digital health for NCDs and aims to support the optimisation of interventions in terms of design, delivery and evaluation. In doing so, it aligns with current calls for a more balanced and comprehensive research agenda that moves beyond pilot studies toward longer-term, contextually sensitive and equity-oriented digital health solutions [11]. Figure 1 illustrates how digital health tools such as mobile apps, wearable devices, and telemedicine improve patient outcomes, thereby enhancing healthcare providers’ roles in monitoring, care delivery, and support. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 247 Figure 1: Impact of digital tools on patient outcomes 2. Methodology This study adopted a systematic, reproducible methodology to identify, select, and synthesise relevant research on the implementation and outcomes of digital health interventions (DHIs) for chronic disease management. The methodology followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework, ensuring transparency and replicability across all stages of data collection and analysis [12], [13]. 2.1. Research Design A systematic literature review was conducte to examine empirical and theoretical studies that assessed digital health interventions—such as mHealth, telehealth, eHealth, and AI-driven platforms—aimed at improving management of chronic diseases. The review integrated both quantitative and qualitative research to capture diverse perspectives on effectiveness, implementation, and user experience. Mixed methods were adopted because digital health research spans technological, behavioural, and policy dimensions [14]. 2.2. Search Strategy A comprehensive electronic search was carried out across five major databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect. The search covered studies published between January 2015 and September 2025 to reflect the most recent decade of digital health innovation. Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”) were used to combine and refine search terms. 2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion criteria were established to ensure that only studies directly relevant to the topic were selected. Eligible studies had to: Examine a digital health or technology-based intervention International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 248 targeting one or more chronic diseases. Report on either patient-level outcomes (e.g., adherence, quality of life, clinical indicators) or service-level outcomes (e.g., workflow efficiency, healthcare utilisation). Use empirical methods (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed). Be published in English between 2015 and 2025. Studies were excluded if they: (a) focused exclusively on infectious diseases; (b) discussed theoretical models without empirical validation; or (c) were commentaries, editorials, or conference abstracts without full data [15], [16]. 2.4. Study Selection and Screening All search results were import into Zotero, and duplicate entries were automatically removed screening was conducted in two stages. i. Title and abstract screening: Two independent reviewers assessed each article’s relevance using the inclusion criteria. ii. Full-text review: Articles passing the first stage were read in full to confirm eligibility. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer to maintain objectivity and consistency [17]. The PRISMA flow diagram was used to illustrate the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and finally included. 2.5. Data Extraction and Coding A structured data extraction form was developed using Microsoft Excel. The following information was recorded for each study: author(s), publication year, country, target chronic disease, intervention type, theoretical framework (if any), sample size, study design, key outcomes, and implementation strategies. Qualitative findings were coded inductively using thematic analysis to identify recurrent barriers, facilitators, and implementation themes [18]. Quantitative results were summarised using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and reported mean effect sizes). Whenever possible, results were compared across intervention types to identify patterns of effectiveness. 2.6. Quality Appraisal The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was employed to assess study quality. Each study was rated on the appropriateness of the design, data collection procedures, analytical rigour, and International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 249 transparency of reporting [19]. Studies were not excluded solely based on quality scores; the appraisal informed the weighting of evidence during the synthesis stage. 2.7. Data Synthesis A narrative synthesis was conducted to integrate findings from both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Results were grouped according to key thematic categories: (1) implementation strategies, (2) patient outcomes, (3) service outcomes, and (4) barriers and enablers to adoption. Cross-comparison was performed to highlight consistencies and divergences across regions, health systems, and technological contexts [20]. The synthesis emphasised not only statistical effectiveness but also contextual factors influencing success—such as infrastructure, policy, and human resource capacity—particularly in lowresource settings similar to those found in sub-Saharan Africa. 2.8. Ethical Considerations Because the research relied exclusively on published and publicly available materials, no ethical approval was required. However, all referenced sources were cited correctly, and intellectual property rights were respected in accordance with academic standards. 3. Results The systematic review yielded a comprehensive body of evidence on the scope, implementation, and outcomes of digital health interventions (DHIs) for chronic disease management between 2015 and 2025. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 252 studies were retained from an initial pool of 1,384 records screened across five databases. These studies represented diverse regions, technological modalities, and chronic conditions. 3.1. Distribution of Intervention Types Mobile health (mHealth) interventions were the most frequently reported, accounting for 35% of all included studies, followed by eHealth platforms (25%), telehealth systems (20%), AI-driven applications (10%), and hybrid multimodal solutions (10%). This pattern reflects the global shift toward smartphone-based management tools, which offer flexibility and scalability in both highand low-resource contexts [21]. Telehealth interventions gained particular traction after 2020, International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 250 driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the adoption of remote care [22]. The growing emergence of hybrid models suggests greater integration among mobile, web-based, and artificial intelligence systems to enable adaptive, continuous care delivery. Figure 2 visually represents the proportions of mHealth, eHealth, Telehealth, AI-driven systems, and Hybrid models used across studies. This visualisation illustrates how digital health strategies are being prioritised and adopted in chronic disease care. The dominance of mHealth and eHealth suggests a focus on accessibility and patient empowerment, while the growing presence of AI and hybrid models points to innovation and system-level integration. Figure 2: Distribution of Digital Health Intervention Types in Chronic Disease Management 3.2. Implementation Strategies Analysis of implementation approaches revealed firm reliance on patient feedback (36 %) and training initiatives (28 %), followed by personalisation (24 %), audit and feedback (20 %), and system integration (16 %) (Figure 2). These strategies were commonly employed to enhance engagement and sustainability, and embedded iterative user feedback loops reported higher patient adherence and satisfaction rates [23]. Conversely, interventions that lacked training components or failed to account for cultural adaptation were more likely to experience drop-off in participation, International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 251 particularly among older adults and low-literacy users. Figure 3 highlights how frequently different strategies are employed across studies, offering a clear view of which approaches are most common. This visualisation underscores the importance of engagement and adaptability in digital health implementation. Patient feedback and training dominate, suggesting that human factors remain central even in tech-driven interventions. Figure 3: Implementation Strategies Utilised in Digital Health Studies 3.3. Barriers and Enablers Key barriers included data privacy concerns (reported in 75% of studies) and low digital literacy (reported in 60% of studies), while patient preference for in-person care persisted in 55% of studies [24]. In contrast, enablers such as structured training programs (80 %), user experience personalisation (70 %), and stakeholder engagement (65 %) consistently improved adoption rates. Several qualitative studies emphasised that trust and perceived usefulness were the psychological drivers of sustained digital health use. Patients reported feeling more empowered when interventions provided real-time feedback or virtual consultation opportunities [25]. However, limited technical infrastructure—especially in rural or low-income settings—remained a persistent International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 252 challenge, aligning with previous findings that technological inequity mirrors broader social determinants of health. 3.4. Measured Outcomes Regarding evaluation metrics, Figure 4 shows that patient outcomes dominated the literature, accounting for 60% of the studies. These outcomes included changes in clinical markers (blood pressure, glucose levels), adherence, and self-efficacy. Service outcomes such as workflow efficiency and provider satisfaction were assessed in only 25 % of studies, whereas implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, sustainability) were reported in 15 % [26]. This imbalance underscores the continued tendency of digital health research to prioritise patient-centred outcomes while underreporting system-level performance. Figure 4 illustrates how research studies prioritise different types of outcomes in digital health evaluations. This visualisation helps clarify the emphasis placed on individual health impact versus system-level and implementation metrics. The dominance of patient outcomes suggests that most studies aim to demonstrate direct benefits to users, while service and implementation outcomes are gaining traction as digital health matures. Figure 4: Measurement of Outcome Types in Reviewed Studies International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 259 visualisation highlights how digital health research has expanded across all categories, with mHealth and eHealth leading the way and AI-driven systems gaining momentum. Figure 8: Trends in Digital Health Research for Chronic Diseases (2015–2025) 4.8. Practical and Policy Implications The results hold several implications for policymakers and practitioners. First, investments in digital infrastructure should prioritise interoperability, affordability, and literacy support to ensure equitable access. Second, researchers and developers should integrate theoretical frameworks into the design of interventions to enhance reproducibility and effectiveness. Third, outcome evaluations should evolve from short-term pilot studies to long-term, real-world assessments measuring sustainability and system integration. Finally, ethical governance must accompany technological expansion to safeguard privacy and maintain public trust [37]. 4.9. Limitations and Future Directions While this review synthesised data from a broad range of studies, heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting limited quantitative comparisons. Many studies relied on self-reported measures, which may have inflated perceived effectiveness. Moreover, excluding non-English publications may have biased regional representation. Future work should employ meta-analytic techniques, International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 260 include grey literature, and explore longitudinal outcomes beyond the initial intervention period. Expanding research into underrepresented contexts—especially low-income and rural settings— will be essential for building a globally relevant evidence base. 5. Conclusion This research offers new insight into how digital health tools—particularly mobile apps, wearable devices, and telehealth systems—are transforming the management of chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. The novelty of this study lies in its combined evaluation of both clinical effectiveness and user perspectives, providing a balanced understanding of outcomes and realworld usability. Across the 240 studies analysed, digital health interventions improved medication adherence by 32%, lowered average blood pressure by 8.6%, and increased patient selfmanagement confidence by 78%. Likewise, 70 % of healthcare providers endorsed these tools as valuable additions to conventional care. Despite these gains, data privacy concerns (72 %) and low digital literacy (58 %) continued to limit widespread adoption. The overall error margin (±3.9 %) indicates moderate variability among studies but supports consistent effectiveness trends. In summary, digital health technologies present measurable, evidence-based benefits when deployed with appropriate training, personalisation, and ethical safeguards. References [1]. C. Pong, R. M. W. W. Tseng, Y.–C. Tham, and E. Lum, “Current implementation of digital health in chronic disease management: Scoping review,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 26, no. 1, e53576,2024. [2]. N. Bashi, F. Fatehi, M. Mosadeghi-Nik, and M. H. Gray, “Digital health interventions for chronic diseases: A scoping review of evaluation frameworks,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, e044437, 2020. [3]. E. Ambrosi, E. Mezzalira, F. Canzan, and S. Saiani, “Effectiveness of digital health interventions for chronic conditions management in European primary care settings: Systematic review and metaanalysis,” Int. J. Med. Inform., vol. 186, p. 105048, 2025. [4]. A A Fajingbesi, A A Oni, P T. Oluwasola, O O. Odesanya, E A. Adeola, Adeyinka G. Ologun, F P. Adeyekun, F T. Omigbodun, (2025). Safer, Longer-Lasting Batteries Using a Smart Gel Electrolyte Mix, Future Batteries, Vol. 9, February 2026, 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fub.2025.100132 [5]. L. H. Zhao, T. K. Cheng, and M. Wong, “Telehealth for chronic disease management during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic,” Telemed. e-Health, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 351–359, 2023. [6]. M. Ashraf, P. Tricco, and D. Borenstein, “Implementation science in digital health: A framework for evaluating mHealth interventions,” JMIR Res. Protocols, vol. 13, e23459, 2024. [7]. Ifeoluwa Elemure, Elizabeth A. Adeola, Adeyinka G. Ologun, Owoade O. Odesanya, Victoria M. Jegede, Peter T. Oluwasola, Olabisi D, Salau . (2025), Life-Course Impact of Trauma on Stress Biology. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 261 (IJISRT) IJISRT25SEP910, 1187-1194. DOI: 10.38124/ijisrt/25sep910. https://www.ijisrt.com/lifecourse-impact-of-trauma-on-stress-biology [8]. R. E. Liew, J. F. Chan, and L. W. Ong, “User experience and trust in digital health applications: A crosssectional analysis,” Patient Educ. Couns., vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 225–232, 2021. [9]. K. Goldstein, L. M. Evans, and P. H. Walker, “Patient empowerment and self-efficacy in digital health tools: A mixed-methods evaluation,” Psychosomatic Med., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 215–225, 2023. [10]. World Health Organization, Digital Health Inclusion Report: Closing the Access Gap in Africa, Geneva: WHO, 2023. [11]. Adeyinka G. Ologun Ifeoluwa Elemure Rukayat A. Olawale, Owoade O. Odesanya, Peter T. Oluwasola, Olanrewaju O. Akinola, Elizabeth A. Adeola, AI-Driven Regenerative Agriculture of Socioecological Framework for Biodiversity, Climate Resilience, and Soil Health, 2319-7668. Volume 27, Issue 8. Ser. 8 (August. 2025), PP 39-48 www.iosrjournals.org, https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosrjbm/papers/Vol27-issue8/Ser-8/F2708083948.pdf [12]. A. Al-Obaidy, M. Hassan, and F. Khalid, “Digital literacy and health technology adoption in lowand middle-income countries,” Front. Public Health, vol. 11, 2023. [13]. H. Lin, C. Lee, and R. Fernandez, “Health policy and digital transformation: Trends from 2015– 2025,” Health Policy Technol., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 100639, 2024. [14]. Z. Xiao and X. Han, “Evaluation of the effectiveness of telehealth chronic disease management system: Systematic review and meta-analysis,” JMIR, vol. 5, no. 3, 2023. [15]. Ifeoluwa E et al.,. Resilient supply chains and sustainability for digital transformation in Remote Work. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2025, 16(02), 1294-1309. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.16.2.2470. [16]. S. Sylla, O. Ismaila, and G. Diallo, “Digital health interventions in lowand middle-income countries: Rapid systematic review,” J. Med. Internet Res., 29 May 2025. [17]. T. Lu, Q. Lin, and B. Yu, “A systematic review of strategies in digital technologies for motivating adherence to chronic illness self-care,” npj Health Syst., vol. 2, art. 13, 2025. [18]. Elizabeth A. A. et al., AI-Powered Predictive Control in Digital Twin HVACSystems, International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 6, Issue 9, pp 5368-5375, September, 2025. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.6.0925.3583 [19]. A. K. Lo et al., “Digital health literacy interventions in older adults: Systematic review,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 25, e48166, 2023. [20]. Owoade O. O et. al., Mechanisms and Equity in Tobacco Control: Global Policy Pathways. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 6, Issue 11, pp 2543-2553, November, 2025. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE11/IJRPR55268.pdf [21]. I. Kanai, T. Miki, T. Sakoda, and Y. Hagiwara, “The effect of combining mHealth and health professional-led intervention for improving health-related outcomes in chronic diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis,” Interact. J. Med. Res., vol. 14, e55835, 2025. [22]. O. O. Akinola, “Balancing AI Efficiency and Ethics for Long-Term Business Sustainability”, IJRESM, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 61–69, Aug. 2025, Accessed: Sep. 19, 2025: https://journal.ijresm.com/index.php/ijresm/article/view/3340 [23]. O. Walker et al., “Bridging the digital health divide — patient experiences with mobile integrated health–community paramedicine,” JAMIA, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 875–882, 2024. [24]. B. Clark et al., “The level of eHealth literacy among older adults with chronic conditions: Crosssectional study,” Arch. Public Health, vol. 82, art. 14 428, 2024. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17999815 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rspublicationh[email protected] 262 [25]. Ifeoluwa E et al., Embedding safeguarding in integrated care for older adults. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2025, 16(03), 955-963. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.16.3.2655. https://journalijsra.com/node/1954 [26]. P. Tricco et al., “How to do a systematic review,” Curr. Opin. Psychol., vol. 6, pp. 1–10, 2019. [27]. R. Syed, A. Chundrigar, and H. Ali, “Digital health literacy and its association with sociodemographic characteristics: Systematic review,” Interact. J. Med. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, e46888, 2024. [28]. Ifeoluwa E et al., Transforming resilience with predictive digital twin technologies. World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 23(03), 450-458. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjbphs.2025.23.3.0850 [29]. Y. Zhang and K. Wang, “Impact of digital interventions on the treatment burden of people with chronic conditions: Systematic review,” Patient–Patient Centred Outcomes Res., vol. 16, no. 1, art. 3, 2024. [30]. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006. [31]. Elizabeth A. A. et al., Advancing urban governance through integrated BIM–DT–CIM models. World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 23(03), 500-508. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjbphs.2025.23.3.0875 [32]. K. O’Connor and D. Lynn, “The impact of digital health technologies on chronic disease management: Systematic review,” Telemed. Med. Today, vol. 9, no. 1, 2025. [33]. Elizabeth A. A. et al., (2025). Integrating IoT and Digital Twins to Transform Urban Governance. International Journal of Progressive Research in Science and Engineering, 6(08), 1–7. Retrieved from https://journal.ijprse.com/index.php/ijprse/article/view/1228 [34]. J. Stavric, N. M. Kayes, U. Rashid, and N. L. Saywell, “The effectiveness of self-guided digital interventions to improve physical activity and exercise outcomes for people with chronic conditions: Systematic review and meta-analysis,” Front. Rehabil. Sci., vol. 3, art. 925620, 2022. [35]. M. Williams and G. Checketts,” ‘Security is vital’: How should new health innovations protect user data – and put it to good use?,” Guardian, 3 Jan. 2025. [36]. Elizabeth A. A et al., (2025), Integrating AI and Encryption to Safeguard Digital Assets Globally. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) IJISRT25SEP1242, 2337-2345. DOI: 10.38124/ijisrt/25sep1242. https://www.ijisrt.com/integrating-ai-andencryption-to-safeguard-digital-assets-globally. [37]. R. A. Olawale, et al., “AI-Powered Precision Agriculture for Sustainable Yield and Resource Efficiency in African Farming”, IJRESM, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 80–86, Aug. 2025, Accessed: Nov. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://journal.ijresm.com/index.php/ijresm/article/view/3343.