ArticleOxford open digital health2025
Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design of digital health regulatory frameworks: insights from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.
Article in Oxford open digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Co-creation as a knowledge mobilization process in digital health regulation in East Africa: The making of the DigiReg compass.Health research policy and systems · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health holds significant promise for transforming healthcare but presents several risks to patients and providers, especially in fragmented regulatory terrains. Experts have articulated the need for clear digital health regulatory frameworks, but there is uncertainty surrounding the design of such frameworks with governments adopting varied models, spanning both formal and informal mechanisms. Using content analysis and a stakeholder dialogue with focus group discussions, we aimed to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs of different forms of regulatory frameworks in low- and middle-income countries, focusing on Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Stakeholders consider both formal and informal regulatory approaches to be beneficial, citing regulatory maturity, political will and financial support as key factors to consider. However, the aim of regulatory design should be patient protection, the key concern being how best to protect individuals' and engender trust between citizens and government. Moreover, while stakeholder engagement is crucial, this should be done with a clear aim and is likely best done in the latter stages of regulation to facilitate peer review of initial regulatory efforts. Overall, context-specific, iterative strategies are key for digital health regulatory design, with patient protection, inclusive stakeholder engagement, flexible regulatory tools and enduring political and institutional support being key factors to consider.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.