ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2026
Policy analysis and expert consultation on cross-border telehealth services.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping global inequities in telemedicine implementation: An umbrella review of barriers and facilitators.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Policy analysis and expert consultation on cross-border telehealth services.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence suggests telehealth can be cost-effective and improve outcomes, including in cross-jurisdictional settings. We examined how cross-border telehealth could support health system transformation and consulted experts to identify priority policy considerations for integrating services across jurisdictions. We conducted a multimethod policy analysis comprising a narrative review informed by targeted searches and policy mapping, pre-Delphi working-group discussions, and a three-round modified Delphi consensus process with 18 experts in health policy, health-care regulation, telehealth implementation and international trade. We then made our draft findings available for World Health Organization-hosted public consultation, incorporating feedback and updating our narrative review. Our finalized challenge-policy matrix included 20 key challenges that we categorized within seven domains: knowledge and awareness; policy and governance; technology and operational issues; data security and privacy; quality and ethical standards; financial and economic factors; and adaptability and resilience. In our detailed challenge-policy matrix we identify national and international required policy actions for all 20 key challenges, which we summarize as: reinforce regulatory frameworks and international commitments; strengthen governance and coordination; build digital health capacity; ensure data privacy and security; and promote sustainable financing models. From a public health perspective, cross-border telehealth is essential for the strengthening of global health systems. Tackling the challenges of regulatory heterogeneity, exclusion from international trade agreements, digital literacy, language barriers and financial constraints requires that regulatory, technological and operational constraints be addressed through international policy cooperation. Priorities include interoperable regulatory frameworks, reduction or removal of unnecessary barriers, infrastructure investment, data protection, sustainable financing and emergency preparedness.
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.