Dataset Information

Defining the Scope of Digital Public Health and Its Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There has been rapid development and application of digital technologies in public health domains, which are considered to have the potential to transform public health. However, this growing interest in digital technologies in public health has not been accompanied by a clarity of scope to guide policy, practice, and research in this rapidly emergent field.

Objective

This scoping review seeks to determine the scope of digital health as described by public health researchers and practitioners and to consolidate a conceptual framework of digital public health.

Methods

The review follows Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews with improvements as suggested by Levac et al. The search strategy will be applied to Embase, Medline, and Google Scholar. A grey literature search will be conducted on intergovernmental agency websites and country-specific websites. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed by independent reviewers, while full-text reviews will be conducted by 2 reviewers to determine eligibility based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data will be coded in an iterative approach using the best-fit framework analysis methodology.

Results

This research project received funding from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Population and Public Health on January 1, 2020. The initial search was conducted on June 1, 2020 and returned 6953 articles in total. After deduplication, 4523 abstracts were reviewed, and 227 articles have been included in the review. Ethical approval is not required for this review as it uses publicly available data.

Conclusions

We anticipate that the findings of the scoping review will contribute relevant evidence to health policy makers and public health practitioners involved in planning, funding, and delivering health services that leverage digital technologies. Results of the review will be strategically disseminated through publications in scientific journals, conferences, and engagement with relevant stakeholders.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/27686.

SUBMITTER: Iyamu I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8280811 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe recent proliferation and application of digital technologies in public health has spurred interest in digital public health. However, as yet, there appears to be a lack of conceptual clarity and consensus on its definition.ObjectiveIn this scoping review, we seek to assess formal and informal definitions of digital public health in the literature and to understand how these definitions have been conceptualized in relation to digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation.MethodsWe conducted a scoping literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and 14 government and intergovernmental agency websites encompassing 6 geographic regions. Among a total of 409 full articles identified, we reviewed 11 publications that either formally defined digital public health or informally described the integration of digital technologies into public health in relation to digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation, and we conducted a thematic analysis of the identified definitions.ResultsTwo explicit definitions of digital public health were identified, each with divergent meanings. The first definition suggested digital public health was a reimagination of public health using new ways of working, blending established public health wisdom with new digital concepts and tools. The second definition highlighted digital public health as an asset to achieve existing public health goals. In relation to public health, digitization was used to refer to the technical process of converting analog records to digital data, digitalization referred to the integration of digital technologies into public health operations, and digital transformation was used to describe a cultural shift that pervasively integrates digital technologies and reorganizes services on the basis of the health needs of the public.ConclusionsThe definition of digital public health remains contested in the literature. Public health researchers and practitioners need to clarify these conceptual definitions to harness opportunities to integrate digital technologies into public health in a way that maximizes their potential to improve public health outcomes.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/preprints.27686.

Project description:IntroductionThe notion of compassion and compassionate care is playing an increasingly important role in health professional education and in the delivery of high-quality healthcare. Digital contexts, however, are not considered in the conceptualisation of compassionate care, nor is there guidance on how compassionate care is to be exercised while using digital health technologies. The widespread diffusion of digital health technologies provides new contexts for compassionate care, with both opportunities for new forms and instantiations of compassion as well as new challenges. How compassion is both understood and enacted within this evolving, digital realm has not been synthesised.Methods and analysisThis scoping review protocol follows Arksey and O'Malley's methodology to examine dimensions of compassionate professional practice when digital technologies are integrated into clinical care. Relevant peer-reviewed literature will be identified using a search strategy developed by medical librarians, which applies to six databases of medical, computer and information systems disciplines. Eligibility of articles will be determined using the two-stage screening process consisting of (1) title and abstract scan, and (2) full-text review. Screening, abstracting and charting will be conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer available for resolution when consensus is not achieved. In order to look at the range of current research in this area, extracted data will be thematically analysed and validated by content experts. Descriptive statistics will be calculated where necessary.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval and consent to participate is not required for this scoping review. The results of the review will inform resource development and strategy for Associated Medical Services (AMS) Healthcare, a Canadian charitable organisation at the forefront of advancing research and leadership development in health and humanities, as part of the AMS Phoenix Project: A Call to Caring, particularly for digital professionalism frameworks so that they are inclusive of a compassion competency.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough important syntheses and theoretical works exist in relation to understanding the organisational factors that facilitate research use, these contributions differ in their scope and object of study as well as their theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, from an exploratory angle, it may be useful to map out the current literature on organisational factors of research use in public health policy-making when revisiting existing theories and frameworks to gain further theoretical insights.MethodsHerein, a scoping review technique and thematic content analysis were used to bring together findings from both synthesised and empirical studies of different types to map out the organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making.ResultsA total of 14 reviews and 40 empirical studies were included in the analysis. These were thematically coded and the intra-organisational factors reported as enabling research use were examined. Five main categories of organisational factors that advance research use in policy organisations - (1) individual factors, (2) the management of research integration, (3) organisational systems and infrastructures of research use, (4) institutional structures and rules for policy-making, and (5) organisational characteristics - were derived as well as 18 subcategories and a total of 64 specific factors, where 27 factors were well supported by research.ConclusionsUsing a scoping review methodology, the intra-organisational factors influencing research use in policy-making (including individual factors) were systematically mapped and the theories applied in this area of research were assessed. The review findings confirm the importance of an intra-organisational perspective when exploring research use, showing that many organisational factors are critical facilitators of research use but also that many factors and mechanisms are understudied. The synthesis shows a lack of studies on politicians and the need for more theoretically founded research. Despite increased efforts to update the existing evidential and theoretical basis of research use, we still need frameworks that combine different approaches and theories to help us grasp the complex organisational mechanisms that facilitate research use in policy settings.

Project description:BackgroundRapid developments and implementation of digital technologies in public health domains throughout the last decades have changed the landscape of health delivery and disease prevention globally. A growing number of countries are introducing interventions such as online consultations, electronic health records, or telemedicine to their health systems to improve their populations' health and improve access to health care. Despite multiple definitions for digital public health and the development of different digital interventions, no study has analyzed whether the utilized technologies fit the definition or the core characteristics of digital public health interventions. A scoping review is therefore needed to explore the extent of the literature on this topic.ObjectiveThe main aim of this scoping review is to outline real-world digital public health interventions on all levels of health care, prevention, and health. The second objective will be the mapping of reported intervention characteristics. These will include nontechnical elements and the technical features of an intervention.MethodsWe searched for relevant literature in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Xplore, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Full-Text Collection. All original study types (observational studies, experimental trials, qualitative studies, and health-economic analyses), as well as governmental reports, books, book chapters, or peer-reviewed full-text conference papers were included when the evaluation and description of a digital health intervention was the primary intervention component. Two authors screened the articles independently in three stages (title, abstract, and full text). Two independent authors will also perform the data charting. We will report our results following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.ResultsAn additional systematic search in IEEE Xplore and ACM, performed on December 1, 2021, identified another 491 titles. We identified a total of 13,869 papers after deduplication. As of March 2022, the abstract screening state is complete, and we are in the state of screening the 1417 selected full texts for final inclusion. We estimate completing the review in April 2022.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to fill the theoretical definitions of digital public health with concrete interventions and their characteristics. Our scoping review will display the landscape of worldwide existing digital public health interventions that use information and communication technologies. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022, which can serve as a blueprint for the development of future digital public health interventions.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/33404.

Project description:IntroductionOver 25 years, emergency medicine in the United States has amassed a large evidence base that has been systematically assessed and interpreted through ACEP Clinical Policies. While not previously studied in emergency medicine, prior work has shown that nearly half of all recommendations in medical specialty practice guidelines may be based on limited or inconclusive evidence. We sought to describe the proportion of clinical practice guideline recommendations in Emergency Medicine that are based upon expert opinion and low level evidence.MethodsSystematic review of clinical practice guidelines (Clinical Policies) published by the American College of Emergency Physicians from January 1990 to January 2016. Standardized data were abstracted from each Clinical Policy including the number and level of recommendations as well as the reported class of evidence. Primary outcomes were the proportion of Level C equivalent recommendations and Class III equivalent evidence. The primary analysis was limited to current Clinical Policies, while secondary analysis included all Clinical Policies.ResultsA total of 54 Clinical Policies including 421 recommendations and 2801 cited references, with an average of 7.8 recommendations and 52 references per guideline were included. Of 19 current Clinical Policies, 13 of 141 (9.2%) recommendations were Level A, 57 (40.4%) Level B, and 71 (50.4%) Level C. Of 845 references in current Clinical Policies, 67 (7.9%) were Class I, 272 (32.3%) Class II, and 506 (59.9%) Class III equivalent. Among all Clinical Policies, 200 (47.5%) recommendations were Level C equivalent, and 1371 (48.9%) of references were Class III equivalent.ConclusionsEmergency medicine clinical practice guidelines are largely based on lower classes of evidence and a majority of recommendations are expert opinion based. Emergency medicine appears to suffer from an evidence gap that should be prioritized in the national research agenda and considered by policymakers prior to developing future quality standards.