ArticleDigital health
Digital health capacity and pediatric care quality in LMICs: A large-scale analysis of 5311 health facilities.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Cost-effectiveness of a smart pillbox intervention for adherence to oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.Nature communications · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital health technologies are crucial for achieving universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with limited digital infrastructure. This study aimed to assess digital health capacity across multiple LMICs and evaluate its association with evidence-based practice (EBP) and patient-centered care (PCC). Methods: We analyzed Service Provision Assessment data collected over the past decade, spanning 5311 facilities and 20,880 pediatric visits across eight LMICs. Digital health capacity was measured using the WHO Classification of Digital Health Interventions (CDHI) across five domains: digital infrastructure, client engagement, healthcare providers, data services, and health system managers. EBP was assessed via ten binary items, while PCC was derived from eleven exit interview items using exploratory factor analysis. Multilevel regression models explored relationships between digital health capacity and both EBP and PCC. Results: Overall digital health capacity was low (mean = 0.35), with notably low scores for digital infrastructure (0.02), healthcare providers (0.21), and health system managers (0.06). Digital health capacity was significantly associated with improved EBP (Coef. = 0.146, p < 0.001), particularly through digital infrastructure (Coef. = 0.183, p = 0.029), client engagement (Coef. = 0.205, p < 0.001), and provider capacity (Coef. = 0.142, p < 0.001). No significant effect emerged for PCC (Coef.=-0.013, p = 0.531). Conclusions: The level of digital health technology in LMICs is generally insufficient, particularly in terms of digital infrastructure, healthcare provider training and health system managers. Although the implementation of digital health technologies has the potential to improve the EBP, its effect on enhancing PCC is relatively limited.
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.