Authors : Kaija Kevin Joel; Faiza Abdul Qadir Baloch; Timothy Aleko

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5n9366j9

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/bd89x5t5

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26mar717

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background Digital health technologies show promise in improving access to reproductive health services for disadvantaged populations, however, their effect on reproductive health equity is not fully understood. This review investigates how digital health interventions influence reproductive health equity across various populations and settings.  Objective The aim is to systematically map existing literature on digital health technologies in reproductive health, pinpoint equity dimensions addressed, and identify enablers and barriers to achieving reproductive health equity through digital health solutions.  Methods Following the Arksey and O’Malley framework, a comprehensive scoping review was conducted. An equity-focused analytical approach guided the examination of factors influencing intervention accessibility and equity outcomes across diverse populations. Findings are reported using the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The search included peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2025 that described digital health interventions targeting reproductive health and explicitly addressed equity dimensions.  Results Twenty studies were included from diverse geographical contexts (Asia n=10, Africa n=8, South America n=1, North America n=1). Digital health interventions included mobile health applications, SMS/voice messaging, telemedicine, interactive voice response systems, and AI-enabled chatbots. Key equity dimensions identified were geographic access (60%), digital literacy (55%), socioeconomic status (45%), education level (40%), gender disparities (35%), language barriers (30%), age (20%), marginalized population status (15%), caste (10%), and intersectional identities (5%). Equity-enhancing features included local language content, community health worker involvement, offline functionality, culturally tailored messaging, and user-friendly confidential design. Equity-limiting barriers included digital divide, infrastructure limitations, shared device access, cost, privacy concerns, and persistent sociocultural determinants like gender norms, caste, and education-based discrimination.  Conclusion Digital health technologies have the potential to advance reproductive health equity but can also perpetuate existing inequities if not carefully designed and implemented with explicit equity considerations. Successful integration requires addressing multilevel barriers including technological infrastructure, digital literacy, sociocultural factors, and economic constraints. Future interventions should prioritize equity-centered design, meaningful community engagement, and systematic evaluation of differential impacts across population subgroups to ensure that those most marginalized benefit equitably from digital health innovations.

Keywords : Digital Health, Reproductive Health, Health Equity, mHealth, Digital Divide.

References :

1. WHO. Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2021.
2. Jonayed M, Rumi MH. Towards women’s digital health equity: A qualitative inquiry into attitude and adoption of reproductive mHealth services in Bangladesh. PLOS Digital Health. 2024;3(10):e0000637.
3. Ssenfuka V, Bwanika JM, Kamulegeya LH, Kiracho EE, Akulume M, Atuyambe L. TELEHEALTH and digital health platforms in promoting access to sexual reproductive health self care among youth: A case of rocket health services in Uganda. PLOS Digital Health. 2025;4(10):e0000770.
4. Nalwanga R, Nuwamanya E, Nuwasiima A, Babigumira JU, Asiimwe FT, Babigumira JB. Utilization of a mobile phone application to increase access to sexual and reproductive health information, goods, and services among university students in Uganda. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):95.
5. Musiimenta A, Tumuhimbise W, Atukunda EC, Mugaba AT, Asasira J, Katusiime J, et al. A mobile health app may improve maternal and child health knowledge and practices among rural women with limited education in Uganda: a pilot randomized controlled trial. JAMIA Open. 2022;5(4):ooac081.
6. Rokicki S, Cohen J, Salomon JA, Fink G. Impact of a Text-Messaging Program on Adolescent Reproductive Health: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Ghana. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):298-305.
7. Choudhury A, Choudhury M. Mobile for Mothers mHealth Intervention to Augment Maternal Health Awareness and Behavior of Pregnant Women in Tribal Societies: Randomized Quasi-Controlled Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(9):e38368.
8. Ilozumba O, Van Belle S, Dieleman M, Liem L, Choudhury M, Broerse JEW. The Effect of a Community Health Worker Utilized Mobile Health Application on Maternal Health Knowledge and Behavior: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Front Public Health. 2018;6.
9. Murthy N, Chandrasekharan S, Prakash MP, Ganju A, Peter J, Kaonga N, et al. Effects of an mHealth voice message service (mMitra) on maternal health knowledge and practices of low-income women in India: findings from a pseudo-randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):820.
10. Verma GS, Gopalakrishnan L, Ayadi AE, Diamond-Smith N, Bagga R, Dhir SK, et al. Preliminary Effectiveness of a Postnatal mHealth and Virtual Social Support Intervention on Newborn and Infant Health and Feeding Practices in Punjab, India: Quasi-Experimental Pre-Post Pilot Study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2025;8:e65581.
11. Siswati TS, Sitasari A, Paramashanti BA, Tjaronosari T, Nurhidayat N, Wijanarka A, et al. Effect of mHealth based intervention on maternal knowledge and practices of child care: A quasi-experimental study. Public Health Indones. 2024;10(1):10-20.
12. Prinja S, Bahuguna P, Gupta A, Nimesh R, Gupta M, Thakur JS. Cost effectiveness of mHealth intervention by community health workers for reducing maternal and newborn mortality in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018;16(1):25.
13. Wagnew F, Ayalew AA, Eshetie S, Lulu YG, Kibret GD, Mulugeta H, et al. Effect of mHealth intervention on maternal health service utilization and birth outcomes in Northwest Ethiopia: a two-site non-randomized controlled trial. BMC Digit Health. 2025;3(1):52.
14. Nuhu AGK, Dwomoh D, Amuasi SA, Dotse-Gborgbortsi W, Kubio C, Apraku EA, et al. Impact of mobile health on maternal and child health service utilization and continuum of care in Northern Ghana. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):3004.
15. Aiga H, Kawakatsu Y, Kadoi N, Obeng E, Addai FT, Ofosu F, et al. Effectiveness of a community-based intervention package in maternal health service utilization: A cross-sectional quasi-experimental study in rural Ghana. PLoS One. 2024;19(11):e0311966.
16. Chima-Oduko AA, Odeyemi KA. Effect of a digital intervention on sexual and reproductive health knowledge, behaviour, and service uptake among university youths in Lagos, Nigeria: a quasi-experimental study. Reprod Health. 2025;22(1):271.
17. Macharia P, Pérez-Navarro A, Sambai B, Inwani I, Kinuthia J, Nduati R, et al. An Unstructured Supplementary Service Data-Based mHealth App Providing On-Demand Sexual Reproductive Health Information for Adolescents in Kibra, Kenya: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(4):e31233.
18. Lopez C, Ramirez DC, Valenzuela JI, Arguello A, Saenz JP, Trujillo S, et al. Sexual and Reproductive Health for Young Adults in Colombia: Teleconsultation Using Mobile Devices. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014;2(3):e38.
19. Threats M, Gray M. Acceptability and Use of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Chatbots for Sexual and Reproductive Health Among Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Women of Color in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e84393.
20. Mwaisaka J, Gonsalves L, Thiongo M, Waithaka M, Sidha H, Alfred O, et al. Young People’s Experiences Using an On-Demand Mobile Health Sexual and Reproductive Health Text Message Intervention in Kenya: Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(1):e19109.
21. Ampt FH, L’Engle K, Lim MSC, Plourde KF, Mangone E, Mukanya CM, et al. A Mobile Phone-Based Sexual and Reproductive Health Intervention for Female Sex Workers in Kenya: Development and Qualitative Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(5):e15096.
22. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19. h t t p s : / / do i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 6 4 5 5 7 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 9 6 1 6 .
23. Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850.