Evidence mapPaperPMID 41546003Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026

Beyond functional utility: ethical stewardship as a driver of digital healthcare platform adoption in low-resource settings.

James Cosmas Kalulu, Min Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James Cosmas KaluluSchool of Economics and Management, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No.2006, Xiyuan Ave, West Hi-Tech Zone, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Min WangSchool of Economics and Management, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No.2006, Xiyuan Ave, West Hi-Tech Zone, Chengdu, 611731, China. wangmin@uestc.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 71772027Science and Technology Program of Sichuan Province No. 2022JDR0094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital healthcare platforms (DHPs) hold transformative potential for bridging healthcare gaps in resource-constrained settings. However, their adoption is hampered by ethical concerns and distrust. This study investigates how perceptions of transparency, health data security, and ethicality influence adoption intentions.

methodWe analyzed survey data from 240 primary healthcare recipients in Tanzania using a two-wave, time-lagged design. Data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the direct and mediated relationships between the ethical constructs and adoption intention.

resultsBoth perceived transparency (β = 0.27, p < 0.01) and health data security (β = 0.30, p < 0.01) significantly influenced adoption intention. Perceived ethicality was the strongest predictor (β = 0.32, p < 0.01) and explained how transparency and security influence intention, indicating that users interpret these features as signs of an ethical platform.

conclusionsFor DHPs to succeed in low-resource contexts, they must be perceived as ethical. Developers should prioritize user-friendly, transparent designs and offline features, while policymakers should establish clear data governance rules. Focusing on ethics is key to ensuring DHPs improve healthcare access for all.

Indexed as

AdultComputer SecurityDigital HealthFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansMaleMiddle AgedResource-Limited SettingsSurveys and QuestionnairesTanzaniaDigital healthcare platformsHealth data securityPerceived ethicalityPerceived transparencyTanzania

Identifiers

PMID41546003
PMCPMC12879456

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.