ReviewDigital health
Utilization of district health information system 2 among health professionals in resource-limited settings: A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: District Health Information system 2 (DHIS2) has become a core digital platform for routine health information management. Although health systems use DHIS2 to strengthen reporting and support evidence-informed decision-making, the extent of its utilization varies across settings. This systematic review synthesized evidence on DHIS2 utilization and its determinants among health professionals in resource-limited settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, African Journals Online (AJOL), Google Scholar, institutional repositories, and government databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and any differences were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and a narrative synthesis was used to summarize study characteristics, patterns of system use, and determinants of DHIS2 utilization. Results: Sixteen studies involving 5,195 Health professionals were included. DHIS2 utilization varied widely, ranging from routine data entry and reporting to advanced applications such as planning, monitoring, and decision-making. Higher utilization was associated with supportive leadership, regular supervision, clearly defined roles, functional monitoring teams, digital skills, confidence, and perceived usefulness. Common barriers included inadequate infrastructure, unreliable electricity supply, and limited internet connectivity. Conclusion: DHIS2 utilization is shaped by interactions among health professionals' competencies, organizational support, and technological infrastructure. Addressing infrastructure gaps and strengthening capacity development may improve effective use of routine health information systems. Future research should use standardized measures to assess DHIS2 utilization and its impact on health system performance. PROSPERO registration: CRD4420251273313.
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.