Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40416400›Full record

ArticleOxford open digital health2025

Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design of digital health regulatory frameworks: insights from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.

Sharifah Sekalala, Shajoe J Lake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oxford open digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Sharifah SekalalaCentre for Global Health Law, School of Law, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5434-5245
Shajoe J LakeCentre for Global Health Law, School of Law, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5442-0329

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health holds significant promise for transforming healthcare but presents several risks to patients and providers, especially in fragmented regulatory terrains. Experts have articulated the need for clear digital health regulatory frameworks, but there is uncertainty surrounding the design of such frameworks with governments adopting varied models, spanning both formal and informal mechanisms. Using content analysis and a stakeholder dialogue with focus group discussions, we aimed to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs of different forms of regulatory frameworks in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Stakeholders consider both formal and informal regulatory approaches to be beneficial, citing regulatory maturity, political will and financial support as key factors to consider. However, the aim of regulatory design should be patient protection, the key concern being how best to protect individuals' and engender trust between citizens and government. Moreover, while stakeholder engagement is crucial, this should be done with a clear aim and is likely best done in the latter stages of regulation to facilitate peer review of initial regulatory efforts. Overall, context-specific, iterative strategies are key for digital health regulatory design, with patient protection, inclusive stakeholder engagement, flexible regulatory tools and enduring political and institutional support being key factors to consider.

Indexed as

digital health regulationhealth appsHealthTechinstitutional designSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID40416400
PMCPMC12101727

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.