ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
A New eHealth Investment Appraisal Framework for Africa: Validation.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sustainable assessment in digital health interventions for primary care: A scoping review.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
(1) Background: Decisions to use eHealth are complex and involve addressing a large opportunity cost. Sound choices are essential. Weighing up investment options is challenging in resource-constrained settings where there are frequently insufficient economics data and expertise to conduct adequate appraisals. To address this, a new eHealth Investment Appraisal Framework (eHIAF) for Africa has been designed and developed. The aim of this paper was to validate the new framework to consider whether it is fit for purpose and to refine it as needed. (2) Methods: An online survey of purposively selected eHealth experts was used to conduct a desktop validation of the proposed eHIAF for Africa. The survey covered the framework development process, structure, content, completeness, and utility. Expert opinions were charted, and a reflective and iterative process used to assess the tool and extract recommendations for refinement. (3) Results: Eleven eHealth experts who completed the survey had experience in African countries and elsewhere. The majority agreed with the eHIAF for Africa development approach and output. They provided valuable suggestions for minor refinements and felt that with these amendments, the eHIAF for Africa would be 'fit for purpose'. (4) Conclusions: The eHIAF for Africa is considered appropriate for use by policy- and decision-makers working in resource-constrained settings who face the task of selecting optimal eHealth investments. It has the potential for applicability beyond Africa and the framework should now be tested in African countries.
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.