Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40949671›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Digital ecosystems for healthcare communication and collaboration: A scoping review.

Augustino Mwogosi, Cesilia Mambile

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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.

Augustino MwogosiUniversity of Dodoma, Department of Information Systems and Technology, Dodoma, Tanzania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0159-6163
Cesilia MambileUniversity of Dodoma, Department of Information Systems and Technology, Dodoma, Tanzania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6152-978X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

collaborationDigital ecosystemshealthcare communicationinteroperabilitylow-resource settingsstakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID40949671
PMCPMC12432315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.