ArticlePloS one2025
Digital health technologies in Primary Health Care in rural territories: A protocol for scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe the protocol for a scoping review on digital health technologies in Primary Health Care in rural territories, with a view to evaluating their impact on the attributes of Primary Health Care and identifying barriers and facilitators for its implementation.
backgroundRural populations face significant barriers in accessing health care, and digital health emerges as a promising strategy to overcome challenges. Nonetheless, there is a gap in the literature regarding the systematic evaluation of the impact of these technologies on rural Primary Health Care, which justifies this scoping review.
methodScoping review protocol, conducted according to the guidelines of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. It was duly registered in the Open Science Framework platform, with information on the conduct of the study in nine stages, following the PRISMA-ScR. The search strategy includes relevant databases and gray literature to ensure a broad mapping of scientific production on the topic. The analysis of quantitative variables will be carried out by simple descriptive statistics, with absolute and relative frequencies, while qualitative data will undergo thematic content analysis, following the stages of preparation, organization and reporting. EXPECTED
resultsBy evaluating the impact of digital technologies on rural Primary Health Care services, as well as identifying barriers and facilitators in their implementation, information is sought to improve access and quality of these services in rural territories through digital health.
conclusionThis review will have great practical relevance for managers, public policy makers, health professionals and researchers, as it is intended to map scientific evidence that can support decision-making and the development of strategies for the implementation of digital health in the studied context.
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.