ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Contextualised digital health communication infrastructure standards for resource-constrained settings: Perception of digital health stakeholders regarding suitability for Uganda's health system.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. 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.
- Impact of digital health technologies adoption on healthcare workers' performance and workload: perspective with DOI and TOE models.BMC health services research · 2025Article
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
Ignoring the need to contextualise international standards has caused low-resourced countries to implement digital health systems on the ad-hoc, thereby often failing to meet the local needs or scale up. Authors have recommended adapting standards to a country's context. However, to date, most resources constrained countries like Uganda have not done so, affecting their success in attaining the full benefits of using ICT to support their health systems. They apply the standards 'as is' with little regard for their fitness for potential use and ability to fulfil the country's digital health needs. A design science approach was followed to elicit digital health communication infrastructure (DHCI) requirements and develop the contextual DHCI standards for Uganda. The design science methodology's design cycle supported DHCI standards' construction and evaluation activities. Whereas two workgroup sessions were held to craft the standards, three cycles of evaluation and refinement were performed. The final refinement produces the contextualised DHCI standards approved by Uganda's DH stakeholders through summative evaluation. Results of the summative evaluation show that DH stakeholders agree that the statement of the standards and the requirements specification are suitable to guide DHCI standards implementation in Uganda. Stakeholders agreed that the standards are complete, have the potential to realise DHCI requirements in Uganda, that have been well structured and follow international style for standards, and finally, that the standards are fit to realise their intended use in Uganda. Having been endorsed by DH stakeholders in Uganda's health system, the standards should be piloted to establish their potency to improve health information exchange and healthcare outcomes. Also, we recommend other low middle income countries (LMICs) with similar challenges to those in Uganda adopt the same set of contextualised DHCI standards.
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.