ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026
Staged, life-cycle approach to evidence generation for digital health interventions in low- and middle-income countries.
Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health interventions (DHIs) are rapidly expanding across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), driven by their potential to address persistent health system constraints, workforce shortages and health inequities. However, the evaluation of these interventions has not kept pace with their adoption. Traditional evidence-generation approaches, particularly those centred on rigid, resource-intensive study designs, are often poorly aligned with the iterative nature of digital technologies and the realities of resource-constrained settings. This misalignment can exacerbate existing system pressures, slow validation and contribute to an enduring evidence-implementation gap that limits sustainable adoption and scale. This narrative review synthesises peer-reviewed biomedical literature, grey literature, institutional reports and applied case studies published between 2015 and 2025 to examine how evidence for DHIs is generated in LMICs. The analysis is organised across three interrelated domains: contextual and stakeholder dynamics shaping evaluations, methodological innovations suited to LMIC realities and top-down policy and regulatory mechanisms influencing adoption and scale. Drawing on this synthesis, the review argues for a staged, life-cycle-based approach to evidence generation, in which evaluation methods and evidence strategies evolve as the intervention matures and the implementation context evolves. This approach emphasises pragmatic, context-sensitive strategies that balance scientific rigour with feasibility. This review aims to provide decision-oriented guidance for innovators, implementers, policy-makers and regulators seeking to generate appropriate, actionable and policy-relevant evidence to support the adoption, integration and scale of DHIs in LMIC health systems.
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.