Abstract
Digital health and the digitalization of healthcare are universal trends, supported by the increasing use of technology, increasing development of relevant infrastructure, reducing accessibility costs and technological advancements. The term digital health is a blanket term that covers a wide range of themes and applications. In this chapter, the term digital health is further reviewed, as different facets of it are accommodated within the different chapters of the book. Additionally, the main differences between digitization of healthcare between high-income and low-and medium-income countries (LMICs) are highlighted. Furthermore, there is particular attention given to the differences between digital application innovation versus diffusion. Taken together, this chapter provides a concise overview on the background and common understanding that should be used when reading this book, and the particular angles used to investigate the digitization of healthcare in LMICs.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
1 Introduction
As with many other blanket terms, digital health has many definitions. In its broadest sense it refers to the use of information and communications technologies in medicine and other health professions to manage illnesses and health risks and to promote wellness (Ronquillo et al. 2017). This is a very wide scope and thus it is inevitable that digital health will have many different facets, and consequently will be ‘re-defined’ closer to the viewpoints of different authors or different disciplines within which it is used, such as health informatics. Digital health is not a new concept in healthcare and some of its earliest uses refer to the adoption of computerised methodologies for the systematic organisation of patient files (Krishnan and Neuss 2022). However, even in this limited context of electronic hospital records (EHRs), implementation was slow and highly fragmented, because the collection of data for public health records (and later on for surveillance) was affected by a historic lack of investment in digital technologies (Vandenberg et al. 2018). In the beginning of the twenty-first century the notion of digital health changed fundamentally as the advent of the internet and improved capabilities for international data transfer meant that digital health was viewed both as a local as well as an international need, with an increasing emphasis on the harmonisation and interoperability of extant systems. The more recent experiences from the outbreaks of infectious diseases (Ebola virus, Zika virus, and currently SARS-CoV-2 virus) have added yet another dimension to digital health: the responsiveness to public health emergencies inclusive of the end user and wider public (Knawy et al. 2020).
Indeed, as technology develops and its integration into routine clinical practice increases, it can be anticipated that consequently the plurality of digital health definitions will also increase, reflecting on the ever-widening user base. At the same time, it is important for a more consolidated taxonomy to be developed on digital health, consolidating digital health concepts/spheres of influence, for use in research, policy development, public health and clinical practice. To this end, there have been some recent, excellent attempts in shaping and understanding this existing ambiguity (Värri 2020; Iyawa et al. 2016), and these would need to be maintained in the future. At the very heart of this ambiguity in digital health definitions lie the many different needs, where it is anticipated that digitalization will improve health services across the board. The World Health Organization (WHO) shares this view, and considers digital health to be linked to the general support of introducing and emboldening universal healthcare systems globally. To this end, the key objectives of digital health for the WHO are: (i) the translation of existing and produced datasets into action, contributing to decision-making; (ii) the use of digital technologies to enhance connectivity and information transfer, including remote communication activities and (iii) the systematic assessment of national and regional needs in relation to emerging new technologies, including the support of technological co-development (World Health Organization 2021).
Therefore, reflecting on the many different needs and definitions, neither this chapter or this book, take a singular view on digital health. Instead, as the book includes over 80 authors from more than 20 different countries, each chapter contains a working definition for digital health so as to facilitate the authors in developing their arguments fully. While this entails the inherent danger of potentially conflicting views, the editors have considered that to be a desirable outcome. Indeed, the current lack of a bona fide definition for digital health indicates that there are, and will be, conflicting approaches to such a definition and as such it serves the wider scientific community and interest for those differences of opinion to remain visible.
The overall approach in constructing the current chapter is that of a narrative review, in which the most recent policies, guidelines, and publications from the last 5 years have been identified through a literature search, with further additional manuscripts being identified through ‘snowballing’, i.e., using reverse citation tracking to find articles that cited others already deemed relevant to the review (Callahan 2014). This narrative review approach was chosen because the aim of this chapter is to provide a broad perspective and explore the general debates and developments. A systematic review approach has been used in other chapters because they focus on unique and specific queries using explicit methodologies (Rother 2007).
2 Differences and Commonalities Between Needs in HICs and LMICs
One of the most pronounced differences in digital health viewpoints is the one that exists between High-Income Countries (HICs) and Low-and-Middle Income Countries (LMICs). This book provides a detailed example from both sides: a HIC implementation and success story is shared by authors from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and by Poland, where the former provides an example of a nearly completely integrated healthcare system, while the latter describes the significant strides and achievements in getting to this stage. They should be viewed as akin to maturity models (Wendler 2012) highlighting a path of evolution for systematic development and improvement. What is common for these two mature examples is that they are using digital health as the engine for growth of the healthcare reach and efficiency and are achieving healthcare services as part of routine practice that would have been difficult to imagine only a decade ago. Thus, the view of digital health is both in terms of individual services as well as of the wider healthcare system. By contrast, while there is a good theoretical understanding of the wider digitalization benefits in healthcare as a whole in many LMICs, most of the examples represent individual institutional success stories, indicative of what can be further achieved, though not representing a healthcare system developed in its entirety.
At this point it should be noted that digitalization need not follow the exact same path of emergence in HICs and LMICs. The implementation of digital healthcare is highly context-driven (Gjestsen et al. 2017), needing to adapt to the user-base, available infrastructure, and political and regulatory frameworks. As such, LMICs should be expected to develop distinctly different approaches in the digitalization of their healthcare (Rossman et al. 2021; Surka et al. 2014). For example, in HICs, digitalization is dominated by the discussion on improving tertiary healthcare capacity (Al-Kahtani et al. 2022) and/or the consolidation of existing services (Vandenberg et al. 2020), while in most LMICs, tertiary healthcare is available to only a small section of the population. In most LMICs, healthcare is provided by primary healthcare centres, e.g., in Nigeria this proportion is as high as 85% of the population (Ugo et al. 2016), as such the path to digitalization would be predictably different. Furthermore, in HICs digitalization in healthcare is often linked with insurance providers (Posselt and Kuhlmann 2020), with the potential to add value in existing systems. However, in LMICs a large portion of employment is in the informal sector; for example, in some areas of Kenya this can amount to over 80% of the labour force (Were 2020). Thus, the market forces that will define the context for healthcare digitalization are distinctly different, and this would inevitably be reflected in the implementation pathways. The next section will investigate some of those trends in digital health and innovation with a focus on LMICs, thus setting the background for the subsequent chapters that will provide a deeper insight into specific contexts across the world.
3 Trends in Digital Health, Trends in Digital Innovations
Ubiquity of digital environments: Digitalization has been increasing across all fields of human activity and the introduction of many new technologies have led to the ‘datafication’ of many routine public health/governmental activities, including in healthcare, albeit with different intensities (Redden 2018). The increased presence of digital environments, as well as increasing experience in implementing digitization programs, are likely to ensure a continued growth for digitalization in healthcare in HICs and LMICs alike. At the same time, digitalization has resulted in an increasing overlap between the production and consumption of data, e.g., patients are increasingly both creators and consumers of healthcare data, highlighting the need for greater accountability on data use, as well as a greater oversight of the ‘translation’ process, i.e., how this data is feeding into ongoing routine activities and decision making (Agostino et al. 2022).
Fragmentation and lack of uniformity: The possibility of data users to add their own comments and perspectives in healthcare or even physiological measurements via wearable devices has been viewed as a way of improving existing services (Minniti et al. 2016) if implemented well. However, this opening up of interaction possibilities has not always been as successful as originally anticipated. For example, in many sub-Saharan African locations, such an interaction was limited to existing vertical programs, e.g., HIV surveillance, and required substantial educational input for staff to be effectively implemented (Kwame and Petrucka 2020). Additionally, the increase of data production, means that a strict hierarchical data structure may not be adequate, as more horizontal platforms may be required, e.g., platforms where patients and doctors would interact directly. This inevitably can lead to the (limited) decentralization of information within healthcare systems, where local larger healthcare units would be intermediate holders of information/platform hosts, and then the data would be integrated at a higher level of structural hierarchy.
However, the multiple sources of data production, mean that there is a high heterogeneity inherent to the healthcare data, rendering the collected big data less informative using current conventional technologies (Dash et al. 2019). Thus, the anticipation is that eventually the data processing will be performed closer to the data producers, utilising distributed technologies, and that a greater data harmonization will be implemented by the necessity of data interoperability as well as the implementation of predictive machine learning technologies (Dash et al. 2019). The need for data harmonization is not new (Liu et al. 2010; Zisis 2016), however the ever-increasing digitalization maintains this need at the forefront. The implementation of Health Level 7 (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) standard (Braunstein 2019) has led to some uniformity allowing partial interoperability (Edoh 2020), although implementation in LMICs remains highly fragmented and requiring the adoption of LMIC-adapted implementation frameworks (Hussein et al. 2023; He et al. 2023).
Lack of regulations, lack of incentives: The complexity and heterogeneity of healthcare data, as described above, generates expected questions regarding the data regulation. In HICs, well-defined data regulatory frameworks have been adopted, e.g., the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union (Voigt and Von dem Bussche 2017) that applies across the entire data processing workflow, from data generation, to storage, dissemination and use. Within LMICs, the development of data protection regulations remains an ongoing process (Akintola and Akinpelu 2021; Vodosin et al. 2021), with the COVID-19 pandemic having acted as an accelerator in terms of the need of enacting such regulations (Hussein et al. 2023).
While the lack of relevant regulations might be one of the barriers to digitalization of healthcare in LMICs, the lack of financial incentives presents a second, equally important, barrier. Digitalization in HICs was driven by a mix of private companies investing in the creation of digital health solutions, coupled by governmental incentives (Abernethy et al. 2022). For example, the driving force for the nation-wide adoption of EHRs in the US was the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, incentivizing the adoption of EHRs (Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2004). This substantial public investment into the digitalization of healthcare was justified on the grounds of improved patient safety, operational efficiency and quality of care (Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2010). Indeed, by 2019, i.e., a decade after the enactment of the relevant legislation, approximately 86% of office-based physicians and 96% of non-federal acute care hospitals had adopted certified EHRs (Health IT Dashboard 2023). This represents the greatest adoption of digitalization in healthcare by data volume ever recorded. At the same time, multiple studies have documented improvements in care quality (Atasoy et al. 2019; Buntin et al. 2011), however, caution should be exercised in attributing the improvement of care quality to a singular parameter such as EHRs adoption, as it is likely due to the confluence of a number of factors.
In LMICs, the introduction of financial incentives across the board is unlikely due to the many competing financial pressures, however, incentivization programs have been successful within vertical sets of activities, e.g., physicians in Nigeria (Adedeji et al. 2022), CashAdvance schemes in Kenya for healthcare providers (de Wit et al. 2022), public health professionals during COVID-19 in Indonesia (Aisyah et al. 2022a) and others. As a result of the increasing digitalization of healthcare in LMICs, new models have been proposed for financial incentivization that are more appropriate for resource-restricted settings (Dohmen et al. 2022), including perspectives akin to micro-finance initiatives, where individual patients/professionals can be rewarded minimally for each completed digital interaction (Faulkenberry et al. 2022).
Lack of infrastructure: The lack of infrastructure is a consistent parameter of operating within LMICs, and equally for supporting digital health advancements (Chen et al. 2022; Nit et al. 2021), although the digital infrastructures are growing in many regions such as India, Vietnam (Winkie and Nambudiri 2023), Indonesia (Aisyah et al. 2022b), Rwanda (Chen et al. 2022) and others. The creation of digital infrastructure is not sufficient by itself, as digital literacy remains at low levels in many countries (Nit et al. 2021; El Benny et al. 2021). Hence the lack of infrastructure should not be regarded in isolation simply as the need for capital investment on technologies, but as part of the digital health environment inclusive of digital literacy. Finally, it should be noted that even when infrastructure is in place in LMICs, it is often required to perform in different ways and/or environments to the one it was originally created for. This need for ‘tropicalization’ of infrastructure, i.e., the adaptation of its performance to LMIC context is critical for the long-term performance and impact of such investments (Tran 2016; Coto-Solano 2020; Ombelet et al. 2018).
4 Applications in Healthcare: Adoption Versus Diffusion
At this point it is important to make a point differentiating between adoption and diffusion of digitalization. While there is a partial overlap of the factors that affect both, they do also contain distinct elements. Specifically, common elements include the availability of adequate training, policies and procedures for end users, and financial incentives at a system level (O’Donnell et al. 2018; Betmouni 2021). Differentiating factors focus on the scale of operations, the need to utilise prototypes to empower adoption, to engage social networks to affect diffusion, the interoperability of operations and the longer-term view that diffusion affords the digitization process (Mason 2015; Plum et al. 2020). There are currently many more studies published in the scientific literature regarding point adoption of digital solutions than studies on diffusion, owing to the fact that the latter require more time for investigation, but also suggesting that diffusion occurs at a slower rate (Omotosho et al. 2019). Having said that, the diffusion studies from rural India (Haenssgen and Ariana 2017; Schierhout et al. 2021), Cambodia (Nit et al. 2021), Kenya (Dohmen et al. 2022), and Nigeria (Adedeji et al. 2022), are informative in highlighting the need for context-driven implementations of digitalization and provide examples of how such a nuanced approach can be achieved in the field.
5 Opportunities
Taking the examples mentioned above into account—and the fact that they represent only a fraction of ongoing activities globally—it is clear that digitization of healthcare in LMICs is only at the first stages of this process. There have been many excellent reviews and books about the future opportunities that digitalization is likely to confer on healthcare in general (Menvielle et al. 2017; McKee et al. 2019; Glauner et al. 2021), but few focus on LMICs specifically, as it is a much more new and fragmented area and more difficult to assess and predict (Tambo et al. 2016). Therein also lie the many opportunities for the creation of new digital innovations, defining new pathways for implementation and impacting the population healthcare in ways that have remained nascent. The recent COVID-19 pandemic served as a proof-of-principle that digitization of healthcare in LMICs, at least some aspects of it such as surveillance and diagnostics, is indeed possible and can provide system-wide advantages to individual countries. Being able to link such initiatives to the introduced universal health coverage services provides the added-value proposition of a rich data resource that can be then used for data mining and inform decision-making of policy-makers and clinicians alike.
6 Conclusion
Digitalization of healthcare has gained momentum over the last two decades and the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an impromptu accelerator for the implementation of digital applications across the world. While this trend of increasing digitalization remains steadfast in the background, a number of differences exist in the digitalization trends and processes between HICs and LMICs. This chapter provided an overview of the main trends, i.e., ubiquity of digital environments, fragmentation and lack of uniformity, lack of regulations, lack of incentives and lack of infrastructure, inclusive of digital literacy. Specific examples have been highlighted from across LMICs, demonstrating that digitalization is indeed possible and can be successful, however it would need to follow a different pathway to that used in HICs and be adapted to the individual contexts in which it is being introduced.
References
Abernethy A et al (2022) The promise of digital health: then, now, and the future. In: NAM perspectives. National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC
Adedeji T, Fraser H, Scott P (2022) Implementing electronic health records in primary care using the theory of change: Nigerian case study. JMIR Med Inform 10(8):e33491
Agostino D, Saliterer I, Steccolini I (2022) Digitalization, accounting and accountability: a literature review and reflections on future research in public services. Financ Account Manag 38(2):152–176
Aisyah DN et al (2022a) The use of a health compliance monitoring system during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: evaluation study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 8(11):e40089
Aisyah DN et al (2022b) Building on health security capacities in Indonesia: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic responses and challenges. Zoonoses Public Health 69(6):757–767
Akintola SO, Akinpelu DA (2021) The Nigerian data protection regulation 2019 and data protection in biobank research. Int Data Priv Law 11(3):307–318
Al-Kahtani N et al (2022) Digital health transformation in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional analysis using healthcare information and management systems Society’ digital health indicators. Dig Health 8:20552076221117742
Atasoy H, Greenwood BN, McCullough JS (2019) The digitization of patient care: a review of the effects of electronic health records on health care quality and utilization. Annu Rev Public Health 40:487–500
Betmouni S (2021) Diagnostic digital pathology implementation: learning from the digital health experience. Dig Health 7:20552076211020240
Braunstein ML (2019) Health care in the age of interoperability part 6: the future of FHIR. IEEE Pulse 10:25. pmid:31395530–27
Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D (2011) The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff 30(3):464–471
Callahan JL (2014) Writing literature reviews: a reprise and update. Hum Resour Dev Rev 13(3):271–275
Chen C et al (2022) Data pipeline for digitizing perioperative flowsheets from low middle income countries. In: 2022 systems and information engineering design symposium (SIEDS). IEEE
Coto-Solano B (2020) Challenges in the incorporation of rehabilitation technology to public health in Costa Rica. In: 2020 IEEE 11th Latin American Symposium on Circuits & Systems (LASCAS). IEEE
Dash S et al (2019) Big data in healthcare: management, analysis and future prospects. J Big Data 6(1):1–25
de Wit TFR et al (2022) Digital health systems strengthening in Africa for rapid response to COVID-19. Front Health Serv 2
Dohmen P et al (2022) Implementing value-based healthcare using a digital health exchange platform to improve pregnancy and childbirth outcomes in urban and rural Kenya. Front Public Health 10:1040094
Edoh T (2020) Primary health-care service delivery and accessibility in the digital age. In: Recent advances in digital system diagnosis and management of healthcare, IntechOpen
El Benny M et al (2021) Application of the eHealth literacy model in digital health interventions: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 23(6):e23473
Faulkenberry JG, Luberti A, Craig S (2022) Electronic health records, mobile health, and the challenge of improving global health. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 52(1):101111
Gjestsen MT, Wiig S, Testad I (2017) What are the key contextual factors when preparing for successful implementation of assistive living technology in primary elderly care? A case study from Norway. BMJ Open 7(9):e015455
Glauner P, Plugmann P, Lerzynski G (2021) Digitalization in healthcare. Springer International Publishing
Haenssgen MJ, Ariana P (2017) The social implications of technology diffusion: uncovering the unintended consequences of people’s health-related mobile phone use in rural India and China. World Dev 94:286–304
He Y et al (2023) Development and national scale implementation of an open-source electronic laboratory information system (OpenELIS) in Côte d’Ivoire: sustainability lessons from the first 13 years. Int J Med Inform 170:104977
Health IT Dashboard. 2023. Quick Stats. Available at https://dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/quickstats.php
Hussein R et al (2023) A guiding framework for creating a comprehensive strategy for mHealth data sharing, privacy, and governance in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). J Am Med Inform Assoc 30(4):787–794
Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2004) Patient safety: achieving a new standard for care. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/10863
Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2010) The healthcare imperative: lowering costs and improving outcomes: workshop series summary. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/12750
Iyawa GE, Herselman M, Botha A (2016) Digital health innovation ecosystems: from systematic literature review to conceptual framework. Procedia Comput Sci 100:244–252
Al Knawy B et al (2020) The Riyadh declaration: the role of digital health in fighting pandemics. Lancet 396(10262):1537–1539
Krishnan L, Neuss M (2022) Virtuosic craft or clerical labour: the rise of the electronic health record and challenges to physicians’ professional identity (1950–2022). Med Humanit 49:281–288
Kwame A, Petrucka PM (2020) Communication in nurse-patient interaction in healthcare settings in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Int J Africa Nurs Sci 12:100198
Liu D et al (2010) Harmonization of health data at national level: a pilot study in China. Int J Med Inform 79(6):450–458
Mason PL. Diffusion of electronic health records in rural primary care clinics. Diss. Walden University; 2015.
McKee M, van Schalkwyk MCI, Stuckler D (2019) The second information revolution: digitalization brings opportunities and concerns for public health. Eur J Pub Health 29(Supplement_3):3–6
Menvielle L, Audrain-Pontevia A-F, Menvielle W (2017) The digitization of healthcare: new challenges and opportunities. Palgrave Macmillan
Minniti MJ et al (2016) Patient-interactive healthcare management, a model for achieving patient experience excellence. In: Healthcare information management systems: cases, strategies, and solutions. Springer, Switzerland, pp 257–281
Nit B et al (2021) The introduction of telemedicine is required immediately in Cambodia: barriers and lessons from COVID-19. J Glob Health 11
O’Donnell A et al (2018) Primary care physicians’ attitudes to the adoption of electronic medical records: a systematic review and evidence synthesis using the clinical adoption framework. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 18(1):1–16
Ombelet S et al (2018) Clinical bacteriology in low-resource settings: today’s solutions. Lancet Infect Dis 18(8):e248–e258
Omotosho A et al (2019) Current state of ICT in healthcare delivery in developing countries. Int J Online Eng 15(8):91–107
Plum A, Tanniru M, Khuntia J (2020) An innovation platform for diffusing public health practices across a global network. Health Policy Technol 9(2):225–234
Posselt J, Kuhlmann E (2020) Digital health in a social health insurance system: new emergent market powers in Germany. Eur J Pub Health 30(Supplement_5):ckaa166-011
Redden J (2018) Democratic governance in an age of datafication: lessons from mapping government discourses and practices. Big Data and Society 2018:1–13
Ronquillo Y, Meyers A, Korvek SJ (2017) Digital health. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island
Rossman AH et al (2021) Digital health strategies for cervical cancer control in low-and middle-income countries: systematic review of current implementations and gaps in research. J Med Internet Res 23(5):e23350
Rother ET (2007) Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paulista de enfermagem 20:v–vi
Schierhout G et al (2021) Why do strategies to strengthen primary health care succeed in some places and fail in others? Exploring local variation in the effectiveness of a community health worker managed digital health intervention in rural India. BMJ Glob Health 6(Suppl 5):e005003
Surka S, Edirippulige S, Steyn K, Gaziano T, Puoane T, Levitt N (2014) Evaluating the use of mobile phone technology to enhance cardiovascular disease screening by community health workers. Int J Med Inform 83(9):648–654
Tambo E et al (2016) Digital health implications in health systems in Africa. Eur J Pharm Med Res 3(1):91–93
Tran VK (2016) Adaptive architecture and the prevention of infections in hospitals. Civil Eng Ser 16(2):2016–2028. https://doi.org/10.1515/tvsb-2016-0028
Ugo O et al (2016) Improving quality of care in primary health-care facilities in rural Nigeria: successes and challenges. Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol 3:2333392816662581
Vandenberg O, Kozlakidis Z, Schrenzel J, Struelens MJ, Breuer J (2018) Control of infectious diseases in the era of European clinical microbiology laboratory consolidation: new challenges and opportunities for the patient and for public health surveillance. Front Med (Lausanne) 5:15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00015
Vandenberg O et al (2020) Consolidation of clinical microbiology laboratories and introduction of transformative technologies. Clin Microbiol Rev 33(2):e00057–e00019
Värri A (2020) What is digital health? Review of definitions. In: Integrated citizen centered digital health and social care: citizens as data producers and service co-creators, vol 275. IOS Press, Amsterdam, p 67
Vodosin P et al (2021) A review of regulatory frameworks governing biobanking in the low and middle income member countries of BCNet. Biopreserv Biobank 19(5):444–452
Voigt P, Von dem Bussche A (2017) The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr). In: A practical guide, 1st edn. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 10–5555
Wendler R (2012) The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study. Inf Softw Technol 54(12):1317–1339
Were M (2020) COVID-19 and socioeconomic impact in Africa: the case of Kenya. United Nations University
Winkie MJ, Nambudiri VE (2023) A tale of two applications: lessons learned from national LMIC COVID applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 30(4):781–786
World Health Organization (2021) Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. World Health Organization, Geneva
Zisis K (2016) Biobanking with big data: a need for developing “big data metrics”. Biopreserv Biobank 14(5):450–451
Acknowledgments
The editors would like to thank the many reviewers who provided constructive comments to the chapters, the many authors who provided their insights into this subject, as well as the publishing house staff, namely Mahalakshmi SathishBabu, Nithya Sechin, Emily Wong and Grant Weston. Particular thanks go to Ms. Tracy Wootton for her administrative support to the editors and helpful insights throughout the collation of this book.
Disclaimer
Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kozlakidis, Z., Wootton, T., Sargsyan, K. (2024). Digital Health: Needs, Trends, Applications. In: Kozlakidis, Z., Muradyan, A., Sargsyan, K. (eds) Digitalization of Medicine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62332-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62332-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-62331-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-62332-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)