Published research
What specific interventions achieved in studied populations. These findings inform our thinking; they are not Afiyah results.
Science at Afiyah
Better questions.
Stronger evidence.
A healthier life deserves more than a promise. Explore the research, review and careful measurement behind Afiyah’s approach.
From the original source. To a considered next step.AFIYAH / EVIDENCE NOTESExplore the method
Start with the evidence.
Independent research informs the questions we ask. Population, comparison and limits remain attached to each source.
Source → Study population → Relevant limitsExplore independent researchCurious by nature. Careful by design.
Research informs the journey.
Evaluation earns the claim.
Personal plans, timely care and small daily actions deserve a clear scientific basis. We keep three kinds of evidence distinct.
Clinical rules review
What a qualified reviewer approved within a defined product scope, with explicit exclusions and conditions.
Afiyah outcome evaluation
What must be measured in the actual Afiyah experience. Independent whole app effectiveness has not yet been established.
Science & evidence
Follow the evidence.
Understand its limits.
Published research, bounded clinical review and measured product outcomes answer different questions.
Explore science & evidence
AfiyahScience & evidence
Every claim needs its context.
- Published research
- Source and population retained
- Clinical review
- Defined scope
- Afiyah outcomes
- Require their own evaluation
The Afiyah quality framework
From a trusted source.
To a tested experience.
Scientific references, clinical boundaries and engineering checks work together. Each capability needs evidence appropriate to what it does.
- 01
Establish the basis
Identify the source, intended use and population.
- 02
Define the scope
Record clinical limits and what needs qualified care.
- 03
Check the information
Preserve provenance, dates, units and uncertainty.
- 04
Test the behavior
Exercise explanations, permissions and approval boundaries.
- 05
Review readiness
Separate local results from clinical and deployment approval.
- 06
Learn and recheck
Use reported issues and proposed outcome studies to guide review.
For your review
The explanation must match the evidence.
A report arrives without a unit or a clear test date.
- Keep the original document, result and laboratory wording.
- Flag the missing detail; do not invent a unit, date or reference range.
- Keep the uncertainty visible in the explanation.
Clarify the source before a governed next action.
The internal app has recorded local software and browser checks using controlled test scenarios. These checks establish specific software behavior, rather than whole app clinical effectiveness.
Methods, tools and standards
Know the method.
Know what it can tell you.
A published instrument, an Afiyah adaptation and an AI explanation each need a different kind of review.
Published self assessment
WHO 5 wellbeing
The five statement wellbeing instrument has a published basis. Afiyah’s private English implementation keeps assessment answers and scores outside AI interpretation.
Read the WHO instrumentOriginal Afiyah adaptation
AHA informed Heart check
The American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8 informs our heart health habits check. Afiyah’s adaptation is not an official AHA assessment or a validated clinical score.
Explore Heart checkGuidance informed design
Wellness plans and Moments
Movement and behavior change references inform practical goals and review. Personal recommendations and adaptations still need their own evaluation.
Explore the source libraryFramework informed controls
Responsible health AI
WHO health AI guidance and NIST AI RMF inform human control, transparent limits, risk review and accountable development. They do not certify Afiyah.
Explore governanceExplore the original frameworksWHO 5 wellbeing AHA Life’s Essential 8 WHO health AI ethics NIST AI RMF
A visible reference library
Look closer.
Follow the source.
Independent studies and guidance behind relevant methods. Source organizations do not endorse Afiyah.
19 results
Time and access
Earlier appointments
14days sooner
Median per completed appointmentPatients who accepted a cancelled slot were seen earlier than their original appointment date.
UCSF · 5,399 completed visits · June 2022 to March 2023Context and limitations
Retrospective US study of Fast Pass, compared with each original appointment date. This is earlier calendar access, not minutes saved in a waiting room. Uptake differed by demographic and language group. It does not establish an Afiyah effect or guaranteed earlier access.
Time and access
Travel avoided for a visit
2.9hours of travel avoided
Estimated average per video visitVideo visits replaced a return car journey in a Florida specialist cancer care study.
11,688 patients · 25,496 visits · April 2020 to June 2021Context and limitations
Single centre economic evaluation. Travel was modeled from patient routes, not timed. A specialist cancer population can travel much farther than primary care patients. Digital care must be appropriate; an examination or test may still need a visit.
Time and access
Fewer trips for medicine
90minutes of travel avoided
Median per patient · 7 month study totalHospital medicine deliveries replaced trips to collect prescriptions. The estimate adds up each patient’s avoided journeys during the study.
912 patients · Spain · July 2020 to January 2021Context and limitations
The median estimated travel time avoided was 90 minutes per patient across July 2020 to January 2021. This is not per delivery, month or year. The hospital programme served 912 patients with 2,536 deliveries. Car journey estimates used Google Maps; these are not measured travel times or Afiyah results.
Time and access
Indirect patient costs
$147 to 186estimated indirect savings
Average in US dollars per video visitThe model combined avoided driving costs and the monetary value of time in specialist cancer care.
US dollars · Cancer care · Two mileage cost modelsContext and limitations
Estimated savings were $147.4 to $186.1 per telehealth visit. They include vehicle expenses and valued productivity, not a cash refund. Patient devices and internet were excluded. These historical US estimates are not Afiyah savings or a local price comparison.
Time and access
Appointment follow through
14%higher attendance
Relative increase · reminders vs nonePatients sent SMS reminders were more likely to attend scheduled appointments. Trial follow up periods varied.
Cochrane · Seven comparison trials · 5,841 participantsContext and limitations
The 2013 review pooled attendance risk ratio 1.14, with 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.26. This is a relative change, not 14 percentage points. Trials and settings varied; evidence was moderate quality. Reminders do not prove downstream clinical benefit or Afiyah effectiveness.
Time and access
Booking beyond office hours
29.5%of bookings outside office hours
354 of 1,201 self scheduling actionsParents could book well child visits beyond usual staff scheduling hours. This is a share of bookings, not a monthly growth rate.
Mayo Clinic · 1,201 actions · February 2019 to February 2020Context and limitations
A 13 month Mayo Clinic study found 354 of 1,201 self scheduling actions occurred outside normal staff hours. The 29.5% calculation excludes cancellation actions. Children were aged 2 to 12. This is not 29.5% more patients or revenue; no show differences were not statistically significant.
Records & understanding
Less searching.
More understanding.
Your records, explained with their source and clinical context intact.
Explore records & resultsAfiyahRecords & understanding
The original stays in view.
Your original health report
- Source
- Original report
- Reference range
- From your laboratory
- Next conversation
- Questions for your clinician
Clinical review and information quality
A defined scope.
A traceable explanation.
The v0.3 clinical rules catalogue records approval by Dr. Abdul Rahman Sinan on 26 August 2026 for bounded adult document explanation and controlled next action guidance.
Diagnosis and prescribing are excluded. This review is separate from whole app validation, security assurance and market authorization.
Read data quality and review scope- 01
Original source
Keep the report and its provenance.
- 02
Personal context
Check identity, date, values, units and lab ranges.
- 03
Visible uncertainty
Flag missing or conflicting information.
- 04
Appropriate next step
Explain within scope and keep clinical judgement with the clinician.
The Afiyah approach
Health is personal.
Support should be, too.
Language, preferences, family and real life belong in the same conversation.
Get to know AfiyahAfiyahThe Afiyah approach
Start with the person.
- Language
- Arabic and English
- Personal context
- Your goals and preferences
- Next steps
- Reviewed with you
Evidence at a glance
What is recorded.
What comes next.
Evidence status · 16 October 2026
- Clinical rules catalogue
- Recorded scoped approvalv0.3 · Adult, non pregnant routine document explanation and controlled next steps.
- Software and permission checks
- Local checks recordedBuild specific tests and controlled browser scenarios; cloud and phone acceptance remain separate.
- Independent health outcomes
- Not yet establishedWhole app effectiveness needs an appropriately designed study in the intended population.
- Wider activation
- Readiness gates remainClinical, privacy, operational and market requirements must be met for the intended release.
What Afiyah needs to measure next
Useful questions.
Accountable progress.
Our proposed evaluation should follow complete journeys and report the comparison, population, timeframe and limitations.
Access and time
Appointment completion, travel avoided and handover time, separated from necessary clinical care.
Personal wellbeing
Appropriate measures, participant experience and sustained engagement, with consent and relevant comparison groups.
Quality and safety
Explanation accuracy, unsupported suggestions, permission boundaries and issues needing human review.
Partner value
Completed care, attendance and genuinely recovered capacity, with costs and attribution visible.
For researchers, clinicians and care partners
Help us ask better.
Help us build better.
Discuss research design, clinical review or a responsibly scoped evaluation partnership.