Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41561857›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Instruments to assess the digital health competencies of healthcare professionals: a scoping review.

Joana Paias Ferreira, Teresa Magalhães

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Joana Paias FerreiraNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Teresa MagalhãesNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Comprehensive Health Research Centre, CHRC, REAL, CCAL, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The digital transformation of healthcare is reshaping clinical practice, healthcare management, patient-provider interactions, and traditional public health fields. These digital tools enhance safety, quality of care and efficacy, while also supporting the shift from cure to prevention, empowering patients, and promoting overall efficiency of healthcare management and delivery. In healthcare, digital competence remains inconsistently defined and its assessment is often limited by conflation with narrower constructs such as digital literacy. The aim of this scoping review is to identify instruments that capture multiple dimensions of digital health competencies, analyse their scope and reported psychometric properties. This provides a clear view of the essential digital competencies in healthcare, critical for improving patient care, development of targeted education and workforce strategies, and advancing public health functions, contributing to a more equitable and sustainable healthcare systems in the digital era. Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for studies published from 2015 to June 2025, using established criteria. Identified instruments were mapped by the digital area they apply, healthcare sample and setting, dimensions of competencies assessed and number of items. Further analysis followed two frameworks for questionnaire development (ESS Handbook) and measurement properties (COSMIN). Results: Of the 441 identified studies, 19 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies predominantly used mixed professional samples; among single-group studies, nurses were most often targeted, and hospital settings dominated, with the public health field rarely represented. Most instruments adopted a generalist scope rather than focusing on a specific digital health area. Psychometric reporting was limited, with only three studies offering comprehensive psychometric validation. One instrument introduced a new perspective by explicitly assessing factors influencing the adoption of competencies. Conclusion: Interest in assessing digital health competencies has grown, and the field is continually evolving; however, psychometrically validated instruments remain scarce. Mapping multidimensional instruments reveals recurring core dimensions and adoption-related factors, providing a clear foundation for more specific, targeted, and practice-aligned education and training, and a generalizable core for a standardized, digital public health competency framework for the multi-professional public health workforce.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceDigital TechnologyHealth PersonnelProfessional CompetenceDigital HealthHumansPsychometricsSurveys and Questionnairescompetenciesdigital healthhealthcare professionalsinstrumentworkforce development

Identifiers

PMID41561857
PMCPMC12812613

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.