Endometriosis Support and Development of Digital Technology–Based Interventions: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Tivizio Pavic, Kévin Nadarajah, Alain Somat, Geneviève Cabagno, Florence Terrade
2025 · doi:10.2196/preprints.71859 · W4415163434
preprint OA: closed CC0
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-06 ⓘ

This systematic review of 10 studies identified six digital health interventions for endometriosis that demonstrated physical and psychological benefits, yet revealed significant heterogeneity in development and evaluation methodologies.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-06 · read from full text ⓘ

This preprint is a systematic review focused on endometriosis support and the development of digital technology–based interventions, surveying the evidence base for technology-enabled supports for people with endometriosis. It uses a systematic-review approach, synthesizing findings across included studies to characterize digital intervention types intended to provide endometriosis support. The preprint text provided contains only a publication-maintenance notice rather than the review’s results, so key findings and stated limitations cannot be extracted from the supplied content. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it is a systematic review of digital technology–based interventions for endometriosis support and development.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BACKGROUND Endometriosis is a chronic disease that affects 1 in 10 women worldwide. The disease affects patients’ daily life at physical, psychological, and social levels. In recent years, the management of this disease has evolved, thanks in particular to the emergence of digital technologies and associated interventions. However, despite their growing use, there seems to be no systematic review of their development, design, and efficacy. OBJECTIVE A systematic review was conducted with the aim of characterizing the development process, design, and effectiveness of interventions using a digital tool for endometriosis. METHODS A total of 7 databases (MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, Academic Search Premier, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, APA PsycInfo, SocINDEX, and SPORTDiscus) were searched to identify relevant articles published between 2010 and 2024. The articles selected were analyzed using a methodological framework specific to the development of digital health interventions (Design and Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions [DEDHI]), consisting of 4 phases: preparation (phase 1, specific to application development), optimization (phase 2, dedicated to identifying the best intervention configurations), evaluation (phase 3, aiming to confirm the effectiveness of the intervention), and implementation (phase 4, implementing and updating the intervention on a large scale). RESULTS A selection of 10 articles was made from the 381 studies retrieved from the databases. Among these 10 studies, 6 distinct digital health interventions were identified. The interventions based on digital devices produced physical and psychological benefits. Analysis using the DEDHI framework showed (1) a disparity in the responses to the different phases (ie, 9/10, 90% of studies responding to phase 1; 3/10, 30% to phase 2; 4/10, 40% to phase 3; and 2/10, 20% to phase 4) and (2) a variability in the completion of the evaluation criteria ranging from 10% (1/10) to 80% (8/10) in phase 1, 0% (0/13) to 77% (10/13) in phase 2, 0% (0/10) to 80% (8/10) in phase 3, and finally 0% (0/13) to 77% (10/13) in phase 4. The objectives of these digital interventions were to support pain management (5/6, 83%), to provide information about the disease and strategies for managing it (4/6, 67%), and to provide psychosocial support (2/6, 33%). CONCLUSIONS This systematic review highlights an emerging literature, limited regarding the use of digital technology in the management of endometriosis, and heterogeneous concerning the methodologies used. This variability limits the generalizability of the results and requires a nuanced interpretation of the available data. However, the results of this review have demonstrated the value of digital technology–based interventions to support endometriosis, while highlighting the importance of a methodological framework to structure their development to optimize patient support.
Full text 767 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you. Who will be affected? - Readers: No access to all 28 journals. We recommend accessing our articles via PubMed Central - Authors: No access to the submission form or your user account. - Reviewers: No access to your user account. Please download manuscripts you are reviewing for offline reading before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM. - Editors: No access to your user account to assign reviewers or make decisions. - Copyeditors: No access to user account. Please download manuscripts you are copyediting before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (86)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK