ReviewDigital health
Digital ecosystems for healthcare communication and collaboration: A scoping review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Communication and medical errors: a bibliometric analysis of research trends and knowledge structures.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Smart Community Hypertension Management: A Narrative Review of Promises and Challenges.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Stakeholders' views on the development and adoption of health policies related to pharmacist scope of practice and the pharmacy practice environment in Australia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital ecosystems integrate interconnected tools, platforms, and stakeholders to support healthcare delivery. While prior research has examined their technological architecture, limited attention has been paid to their role in enhancing communication and collaboration, particularly in low-resource settings. This scoping review explores how digital ecosystems facilitate these functions, identifying key components, applications, barriers, and enablers. Methods: Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, enhanced by Levac et al., a scoping review was conducted using Scopus, PubMed, JSTOR, and Emerald. The review included studies published between 2009 and 2024 and adhered to PRISMA-ScR reporting standards. A total of 15 eligible studies were analysed thematically. Results: Five core ecosystem components emerged: interoperability, stakeholder diversity, patient-centred tools, innovative platforms, and knowledge sharing. Ecosystems supported real-time communication, improved service coordination, and enhanced care accessibility through tools such as telemedicine and mHealth. In low-resource settings, barriers included fragmented digital infrastructure, privacy regulations, and provider resistance. Enablers included strong stakeholder engagement, supportive policies, and low-bandwidth digital solutions like SMS-based platforms. Conclusion: This review highlights the communicative and collaborative functions of digital ecosystems as central to their value in healthcare not just their technological capacity. It contributes a contextual perspective by detailing implementation challenges and adaptations in low- and middle-income countries. To advance the field, future research should adopt standardized frameworks, expand empirical studies in underrepresented settings, and emphasize inclusive, scalable designs that respond to local healthcare realities.
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.