JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Liver transplant candidates and recipients require continuous care throughout the transplant trajectory, including pretransplant prehabilitation and long-term posttransplant management. Conventional care models are constrained by time, distance, and limited health care resources and may therefore be insufficient to meet patients’ needs across the continuum of care. Digital health technologies offer new approaches to remote care delivery and self-management support in liver transplantation.

Objective:

This scoping review aimed to map the technological modalities, intervention components, outcome measures, and implementation issues associated with digital health technologies used across the care continuum for adult liver transplant candidates and recipients and to inform the development of specialty-specific digital continuity-of-care interventions.

Methods:

Nine English- and Chinese-language databases—PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data, VIP Database, and SinoMed—were searched from inception through July 10, 2026. Original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies involving adult liver transplant candidates or recipients and the use of mobile health technologies for care beyond conventional in-person settings were eligible. The review followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework, refined using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, and was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

Results:

The search identified 7,746 records, of which 28 studies were included. The technologies comprised mobile health apps (n=8), telehealth platforms or remote management systems (n=24), intelligent robots (n=3), portable wearable or mobile devices (n=4), and internet-based communication technologies (n=20); several studies combined multiple modalities. Intervention components included remote education (n=22), remote data monitoring or health assessment (n=16), teleconsultation (n=14), psychosocial support (n=10), and remote rehabilitation (n=8). Reported outcomes covered physiological or functional status (n=7), psychosocial outcomes (n=5), clinical and health service use outcomes (n=10), self-management–related outcomes (n=17), health-related quality of life (n=7), and implementation outcomes or patient experience (n=15). The evidence suggested potential value for patient education, follow-up communication, self-management support, medication management, and rehabilitation. However, substantial heterogeneity in intervention models, follow-up periods, outcome measures, and assessment instruments precluded quantitative synthesis and firm conclusions.

Conclusions:

Digital health technologies have potential to support continuity of care across the liver transplant trajectory. However, the evidence base remains limited by small samples, frequent single-center designs, methodological inconsistency, and heterogeneous outcomes. Future research should use rigorous multicenter designs, standardized intervention frameworks and outcome reporting, and stage-specific strategies that account for patients’ digital health literacy and access.