Social Determinants of Health in Digital Health Policies: an International Environmental Scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) include factors such as economic stability, education, social and community context, healthcare access, and the physical environment, which shape an individual's health and well-being. Given that the inclusion of SDoH factors is essential in improving the quality and equity of digital health, this study aims to examine how SDoH is incorporated within digital health policies internationally. METHODS: An environmental scan of digital health policies was conducted, including relevant documents from multiple countries and global organizations. Key content related to SDoH was extracted from the documents, and a content analysis was conducted to identify seven different SDoH domains (i.e., target audience, SDoH inclusion, addressing health inequities, SDoH-related key performance indicators, data collection on SDoH, interoperability standards, and data privacy and security). Data were aggregated at the global and continental levels to integrate and synthesize information from different countries and regions. RESULTS: A total of 28 digital health policies or strategies were identified across 16 international regions. The comparative analysis of health policies regarding SDoH reveals a pronounced disparity between the continental regions. Although the World Health Organization recognizes the significance of key performance indicators for monitoring SDoH and emphasizes the assessment of national digital health maturity, there's a noticeable lack of continent-specific policies reflecting these global initiatives at the continental level. CONCLUSION: While some regional digital health strategies recognize SDoH, integration varies, and standardization is lacking. Future research should focus on data collection frameworks and comprehensive insights for policymakers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".