RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The rapid progression and integration of digital technologies into public health have reshaped the global landscape of health care delivery and disease prevention. In pursuit of better population health and health care accessibility, many countries have integrated digital interventions into their health care systems, such as web-based consultations, electronic health records, and telemedicine. Despite the increasing prevalence and relevance of digital technologies in public health and their varying definitions, there has been a shortage of studies examining whether these technologies align with the established definition and core characteristics of digital public health (DiPH) interventions. Hence, the imperative need for a scoping review emerges to explore the breadth of literature dedicated to this subject. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to outline DiPH interventions from different implementation stages for health promotion, primary to tertiary prevention, including health care and disease surveillance and monitoring. In addition, we aim to map the reported intervention characteristics, including their technical features and nontechnical elements. METHODS: Original studies or reports of DiPH intervention focused on population health were eligible for this review. PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, and the ACM Full-Text Collection were searched for relevant literature (last updated on October 5, 2022). Intervention characteristics of each identified DiPH intervention, such as target groups, level of prevention or health care, digital health functions, intervention types, and public health functions, were extracted and used to map DiPH interventions. MAXQDA 2022.7 (VERBI GmbH) was used for qualitative data analysis of such interventions' technical functions and nontechnical characteristics. RESULTS: In total, we identified and screened 15,701 records, of which 1562 (9.94%) full texts were considered relevant and were assessed for eligibility. Finally, we included 185 (11.84%) publications, which reported 179 different DiPH interventions. Our analysis revealed a diverse landscape of interventions, with telemedical services, health apps, and electronic health records as dominant types. These interventions targeted a wide range of populations and settings, demonstrating their adaptability. The analysis highlighted the multifaceted nature of digital interventions, necessitating precise definitions and standardized terminologies for effective collaboration and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Although this scoping review was able to map characteristics and technical functions among 13 intervention types in DiPH, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence might have been underrepresented in our study. This review underscores the diversity of DiPH interventions among and within intervention groups. Moreover, it highlights the importance of precise terminology for effective planning and evaluation. This review promotes cross-disciplinary collaboration by emphasizing the need for clear definitions, distinct technological functions, and well-defined use cases. It lays the foundation for international benchmarks and comparability within DiPH systems. Further research is needed to map intervention characteristics in this still-evolving field continuously. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021265562; https://tinyurl.com/43jksb3k. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/33404.
Asunto(s)
Tecnología Digital , Salud Pública , Telemedicina , Humanos , Salud Pública/métodos , Salud Poblacional , Intervención basada en la Internet , Promoción de la Salud/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Racism is frequently mentioned as a social determinant of migrants' health and a barrier to health services. However, in the European context, racism and its impact on racialized migrants' access to healthcare is remarkably under-researched. This scoping review makes a first step toward filling this void by mapping the existing literature on racial and ethnic discrimination against racialized migrants in healthcare in Europe, identifying evidence gaps, and offering recommendations for future research on this topic. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, four databases were searched for empirical studies published in English between 1992 and 2022. Studies were included if they report findings on manifestations, experiences and/or impacts of racial or ethnic discrimination against racialized migrants in a healthcare setting in a European country. They were summarized by study characteristics (geographical scope, study design, research question and measures) and research findings were synthesized. RESULTS: Out of 2365 initial hits, 1724 records were included in the title/abstract-screening, 87 records in the full text-screening, and 38 records in the data extraction. For many country and healthcare contexts, evidence on racism in healthcare is lacking. Most studies apply an explorative qualitative research design; comparability and generalizability of research results are low. Our analysis furthermore shows a near-exclusive research focus on racism on the interpersonal level as compared to institutional and structural levels. Our synthesis of study results identifies three interrelated ways in which racism manifests in and impacts migrants' healthcare: 1) general anti-migration bias, 2) health- and healthcare-related prejudice, and 3) differential medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our review underscores how racism reinforces inequities in healthcare access and quality for racialized migrants. It also highlights the need for more research on racism in Europe across a greater scope of country contexts, healthcare settings and migrant/racialized categories in order to understand specific forms of racism and capture race as a context-contingent social construct. It is critical that future research includes the consideration of individual-level racism as embedded in racism on institutional and structural levels. Methods and insights from other disciplines may help to critically examine concepts in light of underlying historical, sociopolitical and socioeconomic processes and structures, and to improve methods for researching racialization and racism in healthcare.