ReviewDigital health
A systematic review: Evaluating the implementation determinants and progress of artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing with East African healthcare systems.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: East African health systems face dual challenges of infectious disease burdens and rising non-communicable diseases within resource-constrained environments. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, and Cloud Computing offer transformative potential for healthcare delivery through enhanced diagnostics, optimized resource allocation, and improved care continuity. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching PubMed, IEEE Xplore Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies on AI, Big Data, and Cloud Computing applications in East-African healthcare systems (2014-2024). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS-I tool, with narrative synthesis used to analyze findings. Thematic analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: From 129 identified studies, 19 met inclusion criteria. Findings revealed promising pilot implementations demonstrating preliminary evidence of improved diagnostic accuracy and operational efficiency. However, based on the available evidence, no interventions achieved sustainable scale-up using predefined scaling criteria. Five key barriers emerged: inadequate infrastructure (reported in 74% of studies), limited workforce digital literacy (58%), incomplete governance frameworks (47%), poor system interoperability (42%), and unsustainable financing models dependent on donor funding (37%). Conclusion: A significant policy-practice gap exists between comprehensive national digital health strategies and ground-level implementation. While pilot projects show measurable benefits, systematic barriers prevent scaling to routine practice. Based on the available evidence, success may require coordinated investments across infrastructure, workforce development, governance, interoperability, and sustainable financing, supported by implementation science approaches. However, the moderate risk of bias in included studies and the developing state of implementation research in the region warrant cautious interpretation of these findings.
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.