ArticleBMC health services research2026
State-of-the-art technologies for the digital transformation of healthcare services - a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of digital technologies within health services promises increased performance, quality, and efficiency. However, evidence is limited regarding the application and outcomes of digital technologies implemented at the level of health services (meso-level) or health systems (macro-level), rather than those evaluated solely as patient-level clinical interventions (micro-level). We systematically review state-of-the-art digital technologies and their applications in healthcare systems and conduct a framework synthesis to review outcomes related to maturity and implementation.
methodsEleven databases were searched (Embase, HMIC, Medline, PsycInfo, SPP, AgeLine, AMED, CDAS, CINAHL, SCOPUS, WoS) on 4th November 2024 for systematic and non-systematic reviews published within the previous five years that provided an overview of digital technologies applied at a systems/service-level (macro/meso-level) in healthcare or evidence for their outcomes. Studies into individual interventions (micro-level) were excluded. Risk of bias/quality assessment tools used in the reviews were recorded. We review types and applications of technology, then use a framework synthesis methodology to assess outcomes relating to digital transformation awareness/maturity, implementation, UK context, and challenges.
resultsOur searches identified 1423 records, with 1011 remaining after deduplication. Of these, 131 were assessed for eligibility, with 28 reviews reporting on 1606 individual studies (with an additional 2437 included in a bibliometric analysis) included in the final analysis. We identified five main groups of technology in healthcare: Integrated Technology/Industry 4.0, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, Internet of Things (IoT), and Blockchain. Our framework synthesis revealed recent conceptual recognition of digital transformation, and variability across regions with regards to the sophistication and maturity of uptake of technologies. We report on four reviews which provided quantitative evidence on the impact of digital technologies in health services. Barriers included major concerns related to data privacy and trust, equity, ethics, and implementation logistics. UK frameworks exist for implementation of technologies, but do not focus exclusively on the systems-level.
conclusionsDigital technologies are increasingly integrated into health service delivery, yet the maturity and evaluation of these tools vary across regions. More robust implementation research is needed for advanced systems. Our synthesis provides a framework for healthcare leaders to assess digital readiness and prioritise technologies aligned with service transformation goals. Limitations of evidence include the heterogeneity of technologies, settings, and outcomes across included reviews.
trial registrationThe review was not part of a trial and was not registered.
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.