ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022
Approaches to priority identification in digital health in ten countries of the Global Digital Health Partnership.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Professionals' Preferences for Next-Generation Sequencing in the Diagnosis of Suspected Genetic Disorders in the Paediatric Population.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Conceptualizing Patient as an Organization With the Adoption of Digital Health.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2024Article
- Strengthening and promoting digital health practice: results from a Global Digital Health Partnership's survey.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- A new digital model for the Italian Integrated Home Care: strengths, barriers, and future implications.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Digital child health: opportunities and obstacles. A joint statement of European Academy of Paediatrics and European Confederation of Primary Care Paediatricians.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To promote shared digital health best practices in a global context, as agreed within the Global Digital Health Partnership (GDHP), one of the most important topics to evaluate is the ability to detect what participating countries believe to be priorities suitable to improve their healthcare systems. No previously published scientific papers investigated these aspects as a cross-country comparison. Objective: The aim of this paper is to present results concerning the priorities identification section of the Evidence and Evaluation survey addressed to GDHP members in 2021, comparing countries' initiatives and perspectives for the future of digital health based on internationally agreed developments. Methods: This survey followed a cross-sectional study approach. An online survey was addressed to the stakeholders of 29 major countries. Results: Ten out of 29 countries answered the survey. The mean global score of 3.54 out of 5, calculated on the whole data set, demonstrates how the global attention to a digital evolution in health is shared by most of the evaluated countries. Conclusion: The resulting insights on the differences between digital health priority identification among different GDHP countries serves as a starting point to coordinate further progress on digital health worldwide and foster evidence-based collaboration.
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.