ArticlePloS one2021
Understanding digital health ecosystem from Australian citizens' perspective: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing the Digital Health Communication Maturity Model: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Nursing in a posthuman era: Towards a technology-integrated ecosystem of care.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023Article
- Development of an Evidence-Based Conceptual Model of the Health Care Sector Under Digital Transformation: Integrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Improving consumer trust in digital health: A mixed methods study involving people living with chronic kidney disease.Digital healthArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health (DH) and the benefits of related services are fairly well understood. However, it still is critical to map the digital health care landscape including the key elements that define it as an ecosystem. Particularly, knowing the perspectives of citizens on this digital transformation is an important angle to capture. In this review we aim to analyze the relevant studies to identify how DH is understood and experienced by Australian citizens and what they may require from DH platforms. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping literature review was conducted across several electronic databases (ACM Digital Library, OVID, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE, Science Direct, SAGE), as well as grey literature. Additionally, citation mining was conducted to identify further relevant studies. Identified studies were subjected to eligibility criteria and the final set of articles was independently reviewed, analyzed, discussed and interpreted by three reviewers.
resultsOf 3811 articles, 98 articles met the inclusion criteria with research-based articles-as opposed to review articles or white papers- comprising the largest proportion (72%) of the selected literature. The qualitative analysis of the literature revealed five key elements that capture the essence of the digital health ecosystem interventions from the viewpoint of the Australian citizens. The identified elements were "consumer/user", "health care", "technology", "use and usability", "data and information". These elements were further found to be associated with 127 subcategories.
conclusionsThis study is the first of its kind to analyze and synthesize the relevant literature on DH ecosystems from the citizens' perspective. Through the lens of two research questions, this study defines the key components that were found crucial to understanding citizens' experiences with DH. This understanding lays a strong foundation for designing and fostering DH ecosystem. The results provide a solid ground for empirical testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.