Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28756767›Full record

ReviewGlobalization and health2017

Beyond pilotitis: taking digital health interventions to the national level in China and Uganda.

Fei Huang, Sean Blaschke, Henry Lucas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Globalization and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
32.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 194 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. What Supports and Constrains the Implementation of Robust and Rapid Evaluation Within Local Government Public Health Systems?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fei HuangNational Center for TB control and prevention, China CDC, Beijing, China.
Sean BlaschkeUNICEF, Kampala, Uganda.
Henry LucasInstitute of Development Studies, Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK. h.lucas@ids.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8454-5344
Institute of Development Studies · GBNational Center for AIDS/STD Control and Prevention,China CDC · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovation theory has focused on the adoption of new products or services by individuals and their market-driven diffusion to the population at large. However, major health sector innovations typically emerge from negotiations between diverse stakeholders who compete to impose or at least prioritise their preferred version of that innovation. Thus, while many digital health interventions have succeeded in terms of adoption by a substantial number of providers and patients, they have generally failed to gain the level of acceptance required for their integration into national health systems that would promote sustainability and population-wide application. The area of innovation considered here relates to a growing number of success stories that have created considerable enthusiasm among donors, international agencies, and governments for the potential role of ICTs in transforming weak national health information systems in middle and low income countries. This article uses a case study approach to consider the assumptions, institutional as well as technical, underlying this enthusiasm and explores possible ways in which outcomes might be improved.

methodsLiterature review and case study analysis.

resultsThe two systems considered have had considerable success in terms of gaining and maintaining government support and addressing the concerns of providers without compromising their core elements. In Uganda, the system has flourished in spite of severe resource constraints, using a participatory approach that has encouraged a high level of community engagement. In China, concern with past failures generated the political will to build a high quality surveillance system, using the latest technology and drawing on a highly skilled human resource base.

conclusionsBoth example stress the importance of recognising the political, social and historical context within which information systems have to function. Implementers need to focus as much on the perceptions, attitudes and needs of stakeholders as on the technology. Implementers should distinguish between factors which may influence engagement at an institutional level and those aimed at supporting and supervising individuals within those institutions. Finally, we would suggest that designing interoperability into systems at the outset, rather than assuming that this can be achieved at some point in the future, may prove far easier in the longer term.

Indexed as

ChinaGovernment ProgramsHumansInternetOnline SystemsPatient Education as TopicPovertyUgandaDigital healthDisease surveillanceHealth management information systemsLow and middle income countries

Identifiers

PMID28756767
PMCPMC5535287
OpenAlexW2739358083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.