Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37061703›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2023

Localisation of digital health tools used by displaced populations in low and middle-income settings: a scoping review and critical analysis of the Participation Revolution.

Jennifer Benson, Tilman Brand, Lara Christianson, Meret Lakeberg

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Electronic Personal Health Records for Mobile Populations: A Rapid Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Feasibility and Acceptability of mPallCareJMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer BensonFaculty of Human and Health Sciences, Public Health, The University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. benson@leibniz-bips.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8909-1233
Tilman BrandDepartment Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Lara ChristiansonDepartment Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Meret LakebergFaculty of Human and Health Sciences, Public Health, The University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS · DEUniversity of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForced displacement is a crucial determinant of poor health. With 31 people displaced every minute worldwide, this is an important global issue. Addressing this, the Participation Revolution workstream from the World Humanitarian Summit's Localisation commitments has gained traction in attempting to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian aid. Simultaneously, digital health initiatives have become increasingly ubiquitous tools in crises to deliver humanitarian assistance and address health burdens.

objectiveThis scoping review explores how the localisation agenda's commitment to participation has been adopted within digital health interventions used by displaced people in low-and-middle-income countries.

methodsThis review adopted the Arksey and O'Malley approach and searched five academic databases and three online literature repositories with a Population, Concept and Context inclusion criteria. Data were synthesised and analysed through a critical power lens from the perspective of displaced people in low-and-middle-income-countries.

results27 papers demonstrated that a heterogeneous group of health issues were addressed through various digital health initiatives, principally through the use of mobile phones. The focus of the literature lay largely within technical connectivity and feasibility assessments, leaving a gap in understanding potential health implications. The varied conceptualisation of the localisation phenomenon has implications for the future of participatory humanitarian action: Authorship of reviewed literature primarily descended from high-income countries exposing global power dynamics leading the narrative. However, power was not a central theme in the literature: Whilst authors acknowledged the benefit of local involvement, participatory activities were largely limited to informing content adaptations and functional modifications within pre-determined projects and objectives.

conclusionWith over 100 million people displaced globally, effective initiatives that meaningfully address health needs without perpetuating harmful inequalities are an essential contribution to the humanitarian arena. The gap in health outcomes evidence, the limited constructions of health, and the varying and nuanced digital divide factors are all indicators of unequal power in the digital health sphere. More needs to be done to address these gaps meaningfully, and more meaningful participation could be a crucial undertaking to achieve this. Registration The study protocol was registered before the study (10.17605/OSF.IO/9D25R) at https://osf.io/9d25r .

Indexed as

Digital divideDisplaced populationsHealth inequitiesHumanitarianLocalisationLow-and-middle-income countriesParticipation Digital health

Identifiers

PMID37061703
PMCPMC10105546
OpenAlexW4365816418

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.