Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40099959›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2025

Digital determinants of sexual and reproductive health-workforce perspectives on digital and data literacies.

Kath Albury, Samantha Mannix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Kath AlburySwinburne University of Technology, Naarm, Melbourne 3122, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9043-8126
Samantha MannixSwinburne University of Technology, Naarm, Melbourne 3122, Australia.

Funding

ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society CE200100005Australian Research Council FT210100085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article explores the impact of digital transformation on sexual and reproductive health promotion from an interdisciplinary perspective, focusing on the implications of rapidly evolving policy landscapes for the Australian health promotion workforce. We draw on 29 key informant interviews and workshops with 18 current sexual and reproductive health professionals (aged 18-29). Both groups were invited to reflect on how digital and data literacies are currently understood and applied within the Australian sexual and reproductive health promotion sector. Interviewees shared concerns related to digital and data literacy, equity, and the challenges of integrating digital technologies into health practice. Findings highlight the need for strategic approaches that shift focus away from individual literacies towards broader organisational capabilities. These capabilities include: an understanding of digital policy and platform governance (e.g. in relation to social media content moderation); an understanding of how health consumers and service users currently utilise digital systems to support sexual health and wellbeing; and an understanding of the ways digital equity and data justice can be undermined or advanced in organisational settings. We conclude with recommendations for enhancing workforce digital and data capabilities and integrating DDoH into health promotion policy and practice to improve health equity. Significantly, we conclude that dedicated resources and training are needed to address the complexities of DDoH in the sexual and reproductive health context.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyHealth PromotionReproductive HealthSexual HealthAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleSocial MediaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40099959
PMCPMC11915501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.