A systematic approach to equity assessment for digital health interventions: case example of mobile personal health records
Open accessAbstract
Despite the increasing number of digital health interventions in low- and middle-income countries and other low-resource settings, little attention has been paid to systematically evaluating impacts of these interventions on health equity. In this article, we present a systematic approach for assessing equity impacts of digital health interventions modeled after the Health Equity Impact Assessment of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The assessment approach has 4 steps that address (1) scope, (2) potential equity impacts, (3) mitigation, (4) monitoring, and (5) dissemination strategies. The approach examines impacts on vulnerable and marginalized populations and considers various social determinants of health. Equity principles outlined by Whitehead and Dahlgren are used to ensure systematic considerations of all potential equity impacts. The digital health evaluation approach that is presented is applied to a case example of mobile personal health record application in Kenya.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Facilities in areas with limited power, internet connectivity, and technical support are less likely to implement EHR systems.
“Facilities in areas with limited power, internet connectivity, and technical support are thus less likely to implement EHR systems [15].”
From mUzima Mobile Electronic Health Record (EHR) System: Development and Implementation at Scale (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
Cites
Crenshaw, K. (2018) · Feminist Legal Theory · doi:10.4324/9780429500480-5 · Cited by 9,510 · see citing works
A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1123 · Cited by 3,078 · see citing works
Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review
Irizarry, T., DeVito Dabbs, A., & Curran, C. R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4255 · Cited by 732 · see citing works
Latulippe, K., Hamel, C., & Giroux, D. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6731 · Cited by 458 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crawford, A., & Serhal, E. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19361 · Cited by 630 · see citing works
Henni, S. H., Maurud, S., Fuglerud, K. S., & Moen, A. (2022) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-12393-1 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Iyamu, I., Gómez-Ramírez, O., Xu, A. X., Chang, H.-J., Watt, S., Mckee, G., & Gilbert, M. (2022) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076221102255 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
“44,72,134,145 Transparent communication and public engagement.”
de Souza Ferreira, E., de Aguiar Franco, F., dos Santos Lara, M. M., Levcovitz, A. A., Dias, M. A., Moreira, T. R., de Oliveira, A. H. M., & Cotta, R. M. M. (2023) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09879-6 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
mUzima Mobile Electronic Health Record (EHR) System: Development and Implementation at Scale
Were, M. C., Savai, S., Mokaya, B., Mbugua, S., Ribeka, N., Cholli, P., & Yeung, A. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/26381 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“Facilities in areas with limited power, internet connectivity, and technical support are thus less likely to implement EHR systems [15].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Were, M. C., Sinha, C., & Catalani, C.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
- International Development Research Centre (CA)
- IDEO (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Were, Martin C
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-06-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 8-9
- Pages
- 884-890
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC7647229
- OpenAlex
- W2953342969
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- International Development Research Centre (106229-003)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- health equity, digital health interventions, low- and middle-income countries, vulnerable populations, social determinants of health, equity principle, health technology assessment, Kenya
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Health Equity, Internet Access, Developing Countries, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Kenya, Internet, Health Records, Personal, Electronic Health Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
