Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Digital health is increasingly used to extend care in low-resource settings, yet improved access, feasibility, or acceptability does not necessarily demonstrate reduced health inequities. This scoping review mapped evidence on digital health and health equity in low-resource settings. Following the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched on 20 May 2026 for English-language studies published between 2021 and 2026. After eligibility screening, two reviewers independently applied a review-specific seven-criterion cross-design rubric before thematic synthesis. Sixty-nine studies were included; all met the review-defined 19/21 threshold for sufficient reporting and relevance to synthesis. Evidence comprised implemented or evaluated interventions and services (n = 34), implementation, adoption, or contextual studies (n = 24), and protocols, development studies, or requirements analyses (n = 11). mobile health (mHealth) applications (n = 39) and telemedicine/telehealth (n = 32) predominated. Leading barriers involved connectivity, infrastructure, or device access (n = 31), digital literacy or usability (n = 22), and affordability or resource constraints (n = 20). Direct evidence of narrowed disparities remained limited. Digital health can support equity when it addresses defined access barriers and is affordable, usable, culturally responsive, locally supported, privacy-conscious, and integrated into actionable care pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galarza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: