Global Digital Health Index 2019

GLOBAL DIGITAL
HEALTH INDEX
The State of
Digital Health
2019

acknowledgements
The Global Digital Health Index (GDHI) is as good as the countries
who participate in it. This inaugural State of Digital Health report
would not have been possible without the support of our partners
in the 22 GDHI early adopter countries, including Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Benin, Chile, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia,
New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Sierra
Leone, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Uganda. Together, they have
given life to the GDHI platform and enabled us to learn from the
global and regional trends observed through the data that they
have contributed.
We would also like to add a special thank you to our Steering
Committee members, who have provided invaluable guidance
and support to the GDHI through the years. In particular, three
Steering Committee members — Adele Waugaman, Chaitali Sinha
and Rajendra Gupta — also served as peer reviewers for the State of
Digital Health 2019 report, and we are deeply appreciative of their
thoughtful feedback. We would like to thank Sara Wallace Beatty
and Christine Dickason of the Global Development Incubator for
their contributions and editorial expertise throughout the report
process. In addition we would like to thank our digital health trends
data partners Reena Sangar at IPSOS Healthcare and Sara Campbell
and Melissa Coniber at Royal Philips.
Last but not least, we are grateful for Johnson and Johnson’s
funding support for this report and for their continued leadership
in identifying opportunities that will move the field of digital
health forward.
authors
Patricia Mechael, HealthEnabled
Joanne Ke Edelman, Global Development Incubator
© April 2019 Global Development Incubator

Contents
Executive Summary
2
Introduction
4
Year in Digital Health
6
GDHI Methodology
8
The State of Digital
Health 2019
12
Regional Digital
Health Trends
18
Other Digital Health Trends
20
Building a Digitally
Enabled Health Workforce
22
Where Do We Go From Here?
24
Global Digital Health
Index Indicator Guide
25

Executive Summary
As our world embraces the adoption of digital technology
in all aspects of life, health leaders have an unprecedented
opportunity to use that technology to bolster existing health
systems and increase the access to and quality of care
worldwide. Opportunities to leverage digital health to reduce
inequalities in health and well-being rely on the availability of
accurate, timely, and reliable data that are triangulated with
existing data sources.
In 2016, HealthEnabled and its partners embarked on a
journey to fill this knowledge gap through the development
of the Global Digital Health Index and Maturity Model, an
innovative, interactive digital resource that tracks, monitors,
and evaluates the use of digital technology for health across
countries. Since launching in 2018, the Index has acquired
critical data on the status of digital health ecosystems in 22
participating countries.
The inaugural State of Digital Health 2019 report provides the
first ever snapshot of digital health ecosystems throughout
the world and lays the foundation for better informed and
coordinated investments in digital health. Furthermore,
this initial effort is intended to catalyze other countries to
contribute their data to the Index so that future analyses
can be even more comprehensive and actionable. The
report presents the data collected from these 22 countries
across 6 different regions, analyzes emerging trends, and
sets benchmarks to consider when charting future growth
and contextualizes the findings in relation to digital health
milestones and other global trends analyses.
Integrating technologies such as mobile phones, tablets,
remote patient monitoring devices, and sensors into health
systems can save lives, extend the reach of healthcare
“The GDHI helped us gather
baseline data for our major
digital health interventions.
During the revision of our
Health Information System
strategic plan, we used the
country scoring in the GDHI
to serve as a baseline and set
targets in different areas.”
- netsanet animut,
federal ministry of health,
ethiopia
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT INCUBATOR2

services, and reduce healthcare costs — yet many countries
face persistent challenges in implementing sustainable digital
health solutions at scale. Key findings from the State of Digital
Health 2019 report reveal that the average digital health
ecosystem maturity is phase three out of five around the
world, with leadership and governance being the strongest
digital health ecosystem component measured by the GDHI.1
However, there is still a significant amount of work to be done
to improve the digital health ecosystem, with the two weakest
areas in standards and interoperability and digital health
workforce development. Countries throughout the world
lack national digital health architectures, health information
exchanges, and data standards, which can slow progress in
the digital health space. In addition, our analysis finds that
countries in Africa lag behind global averages, indicating a
need for a particular focus on investment in that region.
The State of Digital Health 2019 report aims to motivate global
leaders with a unified a call to action. We cannot wait for
the technology revolution to come to us in digital health; it’s
already happening. What we can do is play a role in improving
the data on existing digital health ecosystems, which will
in turn provide clear paths forward for improving them.
Encouraging countries to participate in the Index is the first
step on this path towards progress, and towards catalyzing
and maintaining the momentum. Let us commit to working
together to ensure our world is healthier, stronger, and on its
way towards a brighter future with the help of robust digital
health ecosystems.
We cannot wait
for the technology
revolution to come
to us in digital health;
it’s already happening.
1 GDHI’s maturity model is a roadmap for a country’s digital health growth, recognizing the diversity that
could exist within each phase of digital health development. GDHI uses a capability-based approach,
with five phases of the maturity model corresponding to different capability sets, thus allowing countries
to identify and improve specific weaknesses in capability.
THE STATE OF DIGITAL HEALTH 2019 3

Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) Resolution on Digital Health
that passed in May 2018 championed countries’ embrace of the
rapid adoption of technology to strengthen health systems and
achieve universal health coverage (UHC). To do so, countries require
appropriately designed and scalable digital health solutions, supportive
policies, regulatory environment and infrastructure, increased
opportunities for financing, and sustainable local capacity.
While every country’s digital health ecosystem is unique, each rests on
the same underlying components. Currently, most countries do not
have the enablers in place to maximize the benefits of digital health
to improve health outcomes and health systems. The lack of visibility
or roadmap towards the maturity of digital health has led to persistent
fragmentation and inefficiencies at the national and sub-national level,
impeding countries from maximizing their investments in digital health.
There is an opportunity to support countries to design and scale digital
health solutions, develop supportive digital health policies, increase
opportunities for financing, and build local capacity to sustainably
implement digital health.
The Global Digital Health Index (GDHI) and Maturity Model has been
working with countries and collaborating partners throughout the
world to track and measure global progress in digital health. Data
from the first 22 GDHI countries are presented here in the inaugural
State of Digital Health Report and provide an overview of the current
state of digital health in the world. They are also contextualized within
key digital health milestones and other global trends analyses. In the
future, the GDHI aims to grow the number of participating countries to
increase the comprehensiveness of the data and presentation of trends
included in this annual report.
The GDHI is an interactive digital resource that enables countries
to assess their maturity in digital health and benchmark themselves
against other countries. Recognizing the value of leveraging and
triangulating with existing data sources, the GDHI was intentional in
its design process to engage with different data producers and data
users. Designed using the WHO/ITU eHealth Strategy Toolkit, the
GDHI empowers health ministries, funders, policymakers, and industry
players with data to make informed strategic decisions and investments
in the enablers of digital health such as governance, interoperability,
“The GDHI’s visual map graphics
are very helpful. The index
provides a quick snapshot of digital
health ecosystem maturity at the
global and national levels that can
be easily shown at presentations
and events. These indicators help
inform strategic and constructive
discussions around Chile’s digital
health ecosystem.”
- maurizio giorgio mario mattoli
chiavarelli, instituto de ciencias
e innovación en medicina (icim),
facultad de medicina clínica
alemana-universidad del desarrollo

privacy and security policies, workforce, and infrastructure as they
strive to build sustainable digital health solutions at scale. The GDHI
launched alongside the World Health Organization Resolution on
Digital Health in May 2018.
The GDHI has three main objectives:
• Empower: The Index is an interactive database that provides
visibility into the status, maturity, and historical progression of key
digital health performance indicators at a national and global level.
• Evaluate: The Index benchmarks countries along a maturity
model against standardized digital health indicators. It assesses
the presence of national policies and strategies, investment
risks, and coverage of key digital health platforms and provides a
roadmap for maturing over time.
• Motivate: The Index helps countries track progress and identify
weaknesses within their digital health ecosystems. It incentivizes
improvements in national digital health systems and more
targeted global digital health investments that can benefit
multiple countries. It facilitates learning and sharing of resources
from and by countries that are further ahead in specific areas.
The GDHI was developed as a global public good and open knowledge
platform in alignment with the Principles for Digital Development and
Digital Square Global Goods. It is a multi-stakeholder initiative currently
incubated by the Global Development Incubator with technical
leadership provided by HealthEnabled and governed by a Steering
Committee comprised of representatives from the Asia eHealth
Information Network, Bill Melinda Gates Foundation, Commonwealth
Medical Association, HIMSS, International Development and Research
Centre, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johnson
Johnson, International Society for Telemedicine and eHealth, Ministry
of Public Health of Mali, Ministry of Public Health of Thailand, PATH,
Royal Philips, USAID, and WHO. In addition to the Steering Committee,
a broad range of collaborating partners have engaged in the design,
development, and testing of the Index, including over 20 Ministries of
Health, PAHO, and ITU.
“Using the GDHI, we were able
to identify areas of digital health
in our country, Sri Lanka, where
we have made progress or where
we are lacking. This information
empowers better decision making
on our allocation of resources
and effort. The GDHI also helped
us identify countries we can
learn from that are performing
well in the indices we are lagging
behind in.”
- dr. rythmi ragunathan, institute
of medicine, university of colombo

Year in Digital Health
2018 was a banner year for digital health globally. Several milestones
in 2018 or that are planned for 2019 are creating a solid foundation
for the field of digital health as it matures. Global trends and emerging
innovations are shaping the field in new and exciting ways. These
milestones and trends are creating the conditions for which the GDHI
can help advance the field by helping to inform global and regional
strategies as well as monitor the overall maturity of digital health
globally and by country.
Digital Health Milestones
The most noteworthy milestone in 2018 was the adoption of the WHO
Resolution that aligns the use of technology with the achievement of
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 3: Good
Health and Wellbeing. The Resolution calls for advancements in digital
health related to scale with a focus on equity, support for national and
global health priorities, promotion of evidence and interoperability,
dissemination of of best practices and sharing of experiences, public
health resilience, health and digital health workforce development,
public engagement and trust in digital health, protective policies, and
strategic collaborations. It also calls on the WHO to develop a global
digital health strategy and define its role in the field; elevate its strategic
capacity in digital health; provide technical assistance and normative
guidance to Member States; build on its strength in regulation related
to health data protection; develop a repository of regulations, evidence,
and best practices; monitor developments and trends; and promote
collaboration with a report back on progress in 2020. In alignment
with the WHO Resolution, WHO is leading other efforts including the
Classifications for Digital Health Interventions to provide a standard
taxonomy and language for digital health; the Digital Health Atlas to
enable countries to inventory and track digital health implementations
and platforms; and the Digital Health Guidelines to provide evidence
base recommendations and insights. In addition, the WHO Declaration
on Primary Health Care 2018 highlights technology as an important
driver in the achievement of access to health for all.

Various collaborations are also helping to raise the bar on the field
of digital health, including the Global Digital Health Partnership,
which facilitates cross-country partnerships, and the Health Data
Collaborative Digital Health and Interoperability Working Group, with
its strategic focus and the development of tools to support countries
in the areas of interoperability and continuous improvement for HIS.
In 2018, the Broadband Commission published a report looking at the
role of digital health in relationship to non-communicable diseases,
including diabetes. In addition, in October 2018 the Donor Alignment
Principles for digital health were launched at the World Health Summit
in Berlin to promote country ownership and leadership and pooled
funding across donors to support national-led efforts.
The overall maturity of digital health is also being driven by the
networks that help to advance the field globally and regionally,
including the Global Digital Health Network, Asia eHealth Information
Network, African Alliance of Digital Health Networks, International
Society for Telemedicine and eHealth, Commonwealth Medical
Association Centre for Digital Health, Eastern Mediterranean Public
Health Network, and Central American Health Informatics Network.
“I learned that my country, Chile,
does not have records of what
percentage of public spending
is earmarked for digital health.
Our government spending
classification does not include
such specification nor granularity
level. The process of collecting
country data for the GDHI has
confirmed some of the gaps we
still have, including that perhaps
we should suggest classification
system changes in order to
monitor digital health spending in
the future.”
- maurizio giorgio mario mattoli
chiavarelli, instituto de ciencias
e innovación en medicina (icim),
facultad de medicina clínica
alemana-universidad del desarrollo

GDHI Methodology
The GDHI strives to raise the bar on the field of digital health and is
largely driven by the following theory of change and use cases, which
are prioritized through a participatory design, development, and
testing process involving a broad range of government, private sector,
academic, NGO, and other key digital health stakeholders from around
the world.
theory of change gdhi use cases
... then they can identify
key gaps to inform the
development of policies, scale
up and integration of systems,
and investment in human and
financial capital.
This contributes to a supportive
enabling environment and the
availability, quality, and use of
data to measure and track the
strength of the health system
and the ability for countries
to achieve Universal Health
Coverage and improved
health outcomes.
If countries are able to measure
and monitor their progress and
maturity in digital health,
use cases examples of users
Benchmark a country on
a spectrum of adoption
of digital technologies for
health, and help countries
track progress and maturity
over time.
• Governments
• International Organizations
and NGOs
• Donors
Advocate for resources
to be allocated for digital
health at a country and
international level to
promote donor, public, and
private sector investments.
• Governments
• Private companies
• Donors
• International Organizations and NGOs
Create an avenue to find
countries performing well
or with key lessons learned
to facilitate cross-country
learning.
• Governments
Support private sector
entrepreneurs and
investors to strategically
prioritize new market entry
and strategies.
• Private companies

The GDHI purposefully aligns with the WHO Digital Health Resolution
and can serve as a baseline to inform the development and monitoring
of national strategies and plans of member states as well as a global
digital health strategy. This web-based resource also integrates a
digital health maturity model by reflecting countries’ digital health
development trajectory across 5 maturity phases and enables countries
to select and benchmark themselves against the global average
for each indicator or other phases of maturity. It was designed to
complement the data related to digital health projects and systems
captured in the WHO Digital Health Atlas and align with the Measure
Evaluation Interoperability Maturity Matrix. At the country level,
the tools are being implemented alongside each other in various
combinations. A good example of this is in Sierra Leone where the
GDHI and the Atlas were implemented side-by-side to inform the
development of the newly adopted National Digital Health Strategy.
The web-based GDHI platform uses 19 core indicators for measuring
progress in digital health at the country level across the seven
components of the WHO/ITU eHealth Strategy Framework. Through
two rounds of participatory design workshops with digital health
components of the who/ itu ehealth strategy framework
Leadership and governance
Strategy
and
investment
Services and
applications
Legislation,
policy and
compliance
Workforce
Standards and
interoperability
Infrastructure
Source: WHO/ITU eHealth Strategy Toolkit

CASE STUDY 1
The Use of the GDHI in Sierra Leone’s National Digital Health Strategy
The Sierra Leone National eHealth coordination hub,
an inter-ministerial body hosted at the Directorate of
Planning, Policy and Information, was launched in 2017
with the mandate to coordinate and regulate digital health
deployments in the country. The hub commissioned
the assessment of the digital health interventions in the
country and the development of a national digital health
strategy to support these coordination efforts.
In Sierra Leone’s 2018-2023 National Digital Health Strat-
egy, the GDHI was used as a tool alongside the Digital
Health Atlas and informal stakeholder work-sessions to
examine Sierra Leone’s digital health enabling environ-
ment maturity phase. The maturity phase of Sierra Leone,
according to the attributes that make up the seven com-
ponents of the digital health enabling environment, was
benchmarked against the world average using the GDHI.
This assessment found that Sierra Leone’s digital health
is in the “developing and building-up” phases and will
transition to the “scaling-up” phase of the WHO/ITU
digital health enabling environment matrix. In particular,
according to the GDHI indicators, the country is below
the world average in all seven digital health enabling
environment components: Leadership and Governance;
Strategy and Investment; Policy, Legislation, privacy and
Compliance; Architecture, Standards and Interoperability;
Workforce; Services and Applications; Infrastructure.
The strategy builds on the findings on Sierra Leone’s
digital health enabling environment and provides a guide
to the deliberate and systematic scale-up of ICT adoption
within Sierra Leone’s health sector towards an inter-
connected health system.
In particular, GDHI shows that Sierra Leone's digital health
capacity building strategy and efforts are mostly non-
existent. The Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MoHS)
currently manages the health workforce using the iHRIS
platform and an Attendance Monitoring System (AMS),
both managed by the Human Resources Directorate.
The government of Sierra Leone also recently approved
a cadre of ICT civil servants through an act of parliament,
which is a critical first step in making available the
ICT support skills required for deployed services and
applications. Sierra Leone’s 2018-2023 National Digital
Health Strategy addresses this critical gap by making the
following recommendations:
• Determine the workforce needs for digital health
and ensure functions represented at all levels are
aligned with relevant ministries.
• Deliberately invest in digital health expertise
needed to implement the strategy and beyond. The
required skills vary from standards development, to
management and governance of enterprise IT, to
systems application support and administration.
• Adapt mainstream digital health training for
health institution curricula. This will help
increase awareness of digital tools among the
health workforce.
• Develop a protocol to guide digital health support
and digital health user capacity building plans for
new service and application deployment.
• Strengthen the community health promotion
services with digital health.
• Develop a protocol for digital health cadre similar to
the ICT cadre in the federal civil service.
• Assess, standardize and strengthen iHRIS to ensure
linkages with other health information systems to
facilitate interoperability and shared value.
Source: Sierra Leone National Digital Health Strategy 2018-2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
7. SERVICES AND
APPLICATIONS
6. INFRASTRUCTURE5. STANDARDS AND
INTEROPERABILITY
4. WORKFORCE3. LEGISLATION,
POLICY, AND COMPLIANCE
2. STRATEGY
AND INVESTMENT
1. LEADERSHIP
AND GOVERNANCE
NIGERIAMALIBENINSIERRA LEONE WORLD AVERAGE
LEAST
MATURE
MOST
MATURE

practitioners and experts, the GDHI prioritized these key indicators
from 155 possible indicators to reach a set of user-friendly yet
representative measures of the robustness of the digital health
ecosystem components within a country. The indicators were then
applied to different regional and high-, middle-, and low-income
country contexts and refined through user testing.
The GDHI self-assessment process is largely led by the Ministry of
Health (MoH) or with the support of digital health partners in the
country. In the average phase calculations, the platform rounds up as
the tool is meant to help celebrate achievements, inform planning, and
track progress over time. All the data posted publicly is approved by the
MoH, and under the open data policy of the GDHI, the data cannot be
used for commercial purposes. The following is an illustration for how
countries participate in the Index.
country participation model
Data partner
contacts GDHI for
a country’s unique
data entry link
OPTION 2:
GDHI data partner
works with government
POC to input and
approve GDHI data
OPTION 3:
GDHI data partner
inputs GDHI data
and requests
government
approval
OPTION 1:
Government POC
inputs and approves
GDHI data
Data partner reaches
out to key digital
health point of
contact (POC) to
introduce GDHI
process
GDHI team reviews
submitted data and
publishes it

The State of Digital Health 2019
From the data of the 22 current GDHI countries, trends are emerging in
key areas of strength at a global level including the presence of national
digital health strategies and governance. Major challenge areas include
workforce, interoperability, privacy, and cross-border data policies.
current global digital health index countries
WHO region:
digital health
maturity phase
Africa
Benin 3
Ethiopia 3
Mali 3
Nigeria 3
Sierra Leone 2
Uganda 2
Eastern
Mediterranean
Afghanistan 2
Jordan 4
Kuwait 3
Pakistan 2
Europe Portugal 4
The Americas
Chile 3
Peru 3
South-East Asia
Bangladesh 4
Indonesia 3
Sri Lanka 3
Thailand 4
Western Pacific
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 2
Malaysia 5
Mongolia 3
New Zealand 3
Philippines 4
digital health maturity
phase distribution
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
PHASE
1
PHASE
2
PHASE
3
PHASE
4
PHASE
5
NUMBEROFCOUNTRIES
5
0
1
5
11
LEAST
MATURE
MOST
MATURE

As more countries engage and we move from a single year of data to
multiple years, the value of the tool and the insights it generates will
increase. The GDHI aims to have all WHO Member States participate to
gain a more complete sense of the state of digital health globally.
Most countries are at average digital health maturity overall. Across
the board, half of the GDHI’s countries are at maturity phase 3 out of 5,
with the other half almost equally split just above and below average, at
maturity phases of 2 and 4. The only maturity phase 5 country is Malaysia
(see case study 2), and there is great inter-country and intra-country
variability depending on the indicator and ecosystem component.
CASE STUDY 2
Digital Health in Malaysia
Malaysia has a long history in digital health with multiple
eHealth strategies spanning over 15 years. Its current
eHealth strategy is aligned to the national 5-year rolling
Malaysia Plans for social and economic transformation.
For a nation that is facing the challenges of an aging
population, escalating medical costs, and increasing
burden from chronic diseases, the current eHealth
revolution is timely.
Multiple eHealth initiatives are currently being
implemented. The Malaysia Health Information Exchange,
which was launched in 2009, creates a patient record
interoperability platform for data sharing, a precursor to
public-private integration in the Malaysian health sector.
Several key solution implementations have also been
launched. They include hospital information systems,
currently deployed in various public hospitals; a primary
care clinical system called TPC-OHCIS (Integrated Primary
Care and Oral Health Clinical Information System) being
piloted in 12 clinics for eventual nationwide roll-out; and
a pharmacy information system nationwide in all MOH
facilities. The Malaysia Health Data Warehouse launched
in 2017 serves as a key repository centre of health data
for analytics, strategic planning, evidence-based decision
making, and research.
In addition, Malaysia is known in the digital health field
for embracing innovation and emerging technology
trends including wearables and other connected
medical devices.
Malaysia’s GDHI scores illustrate its cultivation of
leadership as well as its relatively high investment in
technology and push towards scale up of services and
applications, while ensuring that the enablers for digital
health are in place.
malaysia gdhi scores
components digital health maturity phase
1. Leadership and Governance 5
2. Strategy and Investment 5
3. Legislation, Policy, and Compliance 4
4. Workforce 4
5. Standards and Interoperability 4
6. Infrastructure 4
7. Services and Applications 5

Countries’ Leadership and Governance assessments are ahead of
other digital health areas. Among the seven components of the WHO/
ITU eHealth Strategy Framework, the global average in Leadership
and Governance was higher than the global average in the other
six components. On average, countries are at maturity phase 4 for
Leadership and Governance, meaning:
• Digital health governance structure is fully-functional,
government-led, consults with other ministries, and monitors
implementation of digital health based on a work plan.
• Digital health is being implemented as part of national health or
other relevant national strategies and/or plans.
Standards and Interoperability has the lowest maturity phase overall.
On average, countries throughout the world lack national digital health
architectures and health information exchanges and data standards,
leading to the lowest performance in this component.
No country participating in the GDHI has reached maturity phase 5
in Workforce. This reflects relatively weak pre-service and in-service
training for health professionals as well as a lack of established career
pathways for digital health professionals in the public health sector.
digital health maturity phase by component (global averages and distribution)
PERCENTAGE OF GDHI COUNTRIES
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
7. SERVICES AND
APPLICATIONS
6. INFRASTRUCTURE
5. STANDARDS AND
INTEROPERABILITY
4. WORKFORCE
3. LEGISLATION, POLICY,
AND COMPLIANCE
2. STRATEGY AND
INVESTMENT
1. LEADERSHIP AND
GOVERNANCE
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
7. SERVICES AND
APPLICATIONS
6. INFRASTRUCTURE
5. STANDARDS AND
INTEROPERABILITY
4. WORKFORCE
AND COMPLIANCE
2. STRATEGY AND
INVESTMENT
1. LEADERSHIP AND
GOVERNANCE
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5
DIGITAL HEALTH MATURITY PHASE
0 1 2 3 54
7. SERVICES AND
APPLICATIONS
6. INFRASTRUCTURE
5. STANDARDS AND
INTEROPERABILITY
4. WORKFORCE
AND COMPLIANCE
2. STRATEGY AND
INVESTMENT
1. LEADERSHIP AND
GOVERNANCE
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
“We were focusing too much
on the technology piece and
neglected the governance
aspect. We learned that to show
progress in our digital health
efforts, we need to give equal
emphasis to all aspects of system
implementation and usability.
The Health Information System
governance work is what has
been lagging behind, and the
GDHI helped us to prioritize these
areas during annual planning.”
- netsanet animut, federal ministry
of health, ethiopia

Breakdown by Component
1. Leadership and Governance
Countries are doing well in prioritizing digital health planning at the
national level, although the institutional structures lag behind in
terms of the creation of dedicated digital health governing bodies.
All but two GDHI countries have digital health included in their national
health or relevant national strategies and plans. 17 of these 22 countries
also have a functional digital health body, although only 10 of these are
government-led, of which two have institutionalized the digital health
governance structure.
2. Strategy and Investment
National level digital health strategies vary widely. Only 9 of the 22
countries have a national digital health strategy and costed plan fully or
partly implemented, while others either have no approved digital health
strategy or costed digital health plan at all.
Insufficient public resources are dedicated to digital health. Malaysia
reported 3-5% of the national public spending on health committed to
digital health, the highest of the 22 GDHI countries. 12 of 19 countries
have 0-1% of public health budget for digital health. While there are
high expectations for the potential that digital health can have on
health outcomes and health systems, the financial investments are not
keeping pace with country aspirations.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
1
PHASES
2 3 4 5
1. DIGITAL HEALTH
PRIORITIZED AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL
THROUGH DEDICATED
BODIES/MECHANISMS
FOR GOVERNANCE
2. DIGITAL HEALTH
PRIORITIZED AT
THE NATIONAL
LEVEL THROUGH
PLANNING
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
3. NATIONAL EHEALTH
/DIGITAL HEALTH
STRATEGY OR
FRAMEWORK
4. PUBLIC FUNDING
FOR DIGITAL HEALTH
0 5 10 15 20 25
CASE STUDY 3
Pakistan’s Experience Using GDHI
“The most helpful function of the GDHI has been the
comparison of Pakistan’s digital health ecosystem with
the global average and with countries in other maturity
phases. It helped us evaluate the progress being made
on several indicators and serves as an overall progress
tracking system.
Through this process, we learned about several
areas of weakness that Pakistan will need to address
for an efficient digital health system across the
country, including:
• Building a legislative framework to protect
individual privacy, governing ownership, access,
and sharing of individually identifiable digital health
data. We have already done some baseline work in
this regard.
• Creating a digital health curriculum for health
professionals as part of pre-service training
requirements
• Improving the secure registry, which is currently
incomplete and not regularly maintained”
- dr. syed mursalin, ministry of planning development and
reform, government of pakistan

3. Legislation, Policy, and Compliance
Most countries have some laws on data security and privacy,
confidentiality, and access to health information, although at
different stages of implementation. 18 of the 22 countries have
under review or implemented to some degree laws on data security
(storage, transmission, use) and to protect individual privacy, governing
ownership, access and sharing of individually identifiable digital
health data. However, only four countries consistently enforce the
data security law, and only two countries (Malaysia and Portugal)
consistently enforce the privacy law.
Protocols for regulating and certifying digital health devices and
services, as well as cross-border data security and sharing, is lacking.
4 of the 22 countries reported having approved protocols, policies,
frameworks, or accepted processes governing the clinical and patient
care use of connected medical devices and digital health services
(e.g. telemedicine, applications), particularly in relation to safety, data
integrity, and quality of care. 7 of the 22 countries have approved
protocols, policies, frameworks, or accepted processes for cross-
border data exchange and storage.
4. Workforce
Building digital health competency among health professionals
is a pain point for most countries, although some countries
have successfully produced digital health professionals through
specialized digital health programs. Currently, 20 of the 22 countries
either provide no digital health training to health professionals as part
of their pre-service training requirements or only do so for less than
25% of health professionals. This is also the case for in-service training
reported by 17 of the 22 countries. However, it is encouraging to see a
big push towards establishing digital health, health informatics, health
information systems, and biomedical informatics degree programs.
These are starting to show promising results in creating specialized
digital health workers, particularly in the countries reporting a Phase 4,
namely Bangladesh, Chile, Ethiopia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Peru, Portugal,
Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Uganda. Despite the availability of training
programs, most countries report that they are insufficient for the
current demands, and that the career path in the public sector has not
yet been established.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
9. DIGITAL HEALTH
INTEGRATED IN
HEALTH AND RELATED
PROFESSIONAL
PRE-SERVICE TRAINING
(PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT)
10. DIGITAL HEALTH
INTEGRATED IN HEALTH
AND RELATED
PROFESSIONAL
IN-SERVICE TRAINING
(AFTER DEPLOYMENT)
11. TRAINING OF
DIGITAL HEALTH
WORK FORCE
12. MATURITY OF
PUBLIC SECTOR
DIGITAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL
CAREERS
0 5 10 15
1
PHASES
2 3 4 5
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
15. NETWORK
READINESS
16. PLANNING AND
SUPPORT FOR
ONGOING DIGITAL
HEALTH INFRASTRUC-
TURE MAINTENANCE
1
PHASES
2 3 4
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
5. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
FOR DATA PROTECTION
(SECURITY)
6. LAWS OR
REGULATIONS FOR
PRIVACY, CONFIDENTI-
ALITY AND ACESS TO
HEALTH INFORMATION
(PRIVACY)
7. PROTOCOL FOR
REGULATING OR
CERTIFYING DEVICES
AND/OR DIGITAL
HEALTH SERVICES
8. CROSS-BORDER
DATA SECURITY AND
SHARING

5. Standards and Interoperability
Almost half of the countries do not have national digital health
(eHealth) architectural framework and/or health information
exchange (HIE) established. However, more countries are
implementing data standards. Interoperability is a persistent challenge
in most countries. With more digital health services advancing in scale,
the need to transition from silloes to integration is increasing. The
only country assessing at a Phase 5 in Interoperability in the GDHI is
the Philippines. As Sierra Leone was working on their digital health
strategy, they were able to use the GDHI to include resources from
the Philippines as part of their roadmap to support advancement in
this area. The only country assessing at Phase 5 in health information
standards is Benin, which has prioritized digital health as an important
part of its national health priorities.
6. Infrastructure
New Zealand is the most advanced in Infrastructure. The GDHI uses
the WEF Network Readiness Index to assess the factors, policies, and
institutions that enable a country to fully leverage information and
communication technologies (ICTs). It provides an indication as to how
mature the infrastructure ecosystem is that is needed to support digital
health investments. The variability among countries is significant with
a more even distribution across maturity phases than other indicators.
However, most countries have plans to support digital health
infrastructure provision and maintenance in health facilities and offices
supported by the public sector, with Bangladesh, Jordan, and Thailand
assessing as Phase 5 countries.
7. Services and Applications
No countries reported having fully scaled digital health platforms
to address the majority of their national health priorities. Some
countries reported having electronic registries that have scaled
nationally, particularly for births and immunization. Malaysia is
the only GDHI Phase 5 country in this component overall, with the
Philippines as the only country reporting Phase 5 for health system
registries. Many more countries reported Phase 5 for individual
registries, including Chile, Indonesia, Kuwait, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Portugal, and Thailand. Countries reporting nationally scaled birth
registries include Bangladesh, Chile, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia,
Mongolia, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, and Thailand, and those
reporting immunization registries include Chile, Kuwait, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, and Thailand.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
13. NATIONAL DIGITAL
HEALTH ARCHITECTURE
AND/OR HEALTH
INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
14. HEALTH
INFORMATION
STANDARDS
5 10 15
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
17. NATIONALLY
SCALED DIGITAL
HEALTH SYSTEMS
18. DIGITAL IDENTITY
MANAGEMENT OF
SERVICE PROVIDERS,
ADMINISTRATORS, AND
FACILITIES FOR DIGITAL
HEALTH, INCLUDING
LOCATION DATA FOR
GIS MAPPING
19. DIGITAL IDENTITY
MANAGEMENT OF
INDIVIDUALS FOR
HEALTH
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
15. NETWORK
READINESS
16. PLANNING AND
SUPPORT FOR
ONGOING DIGITAL
HEALTH INFRASTRUC-
TURE MAINTENANCE
1
PHASES
2 3 4
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
15. NETWORK
READINESS
16. PLANNING AND
SUPPORT FOR
ONGOING DIGITAL
HEALTH INFRASTRUC-
TURE MAINTENANCE
1
PHASES
2 3 4

Regional Digital Health Trends
Southeast Asia and Western Pacific Regions have more mature digital
health ecosystems than the other regions. European, Southeast Asia
and Western Pacific Regions scored 4 out of 5 on the GDHI’s maturity
model, and all other regions are just behind with 3 out of 5 in overall
digital health maturity. While this currently provides a high-level view
on overall maturity of a few countries per region, the ability to assess
regional trends and to use the GDHI for regional planning will increase
as more countries per region participate.
High-level regional variations include higher maturity overall in Leadership
and Governance with lower maturity in Eastern Mediterranean. We also
observed average maturity in the Americas and Eastern Mediterranean
at lower maturity in Strategy and Investment. In Legislation and Policy,
the two countries in the Americas are at higher maturity with Africa and
the Eastern Mediterranean at Phase 2 maturity. In the area of Workforce,
Southeast Asia has the highest maturity, and Eastern Mediterranean has
the lowest. In Standards and Interoperability, three out of five regions are
at average maturity with Africa and the Americas at lowest maturity. In
Infrastructure, Southeast Asia and Western Pacific are highest with Africa
at the lowest. In Services and Applications, most regions are at average
maturity with the Americas and Southeast Asia at higher maturity. These
trends highlight some key areas that regions may want to collectively
celebrate and/or address and sheds light on regions that they might look
to for insights on how to advance in specific areas of need.2
For Africa, the maturity phase lags behind the global average,
particularly for legislation, policy, and compliance, standards and
operability, and infrastructure. For the Southeast Asia region, the
maturity phase is above the global average, particularly for workforce,
infrastructure, and services and applications. For the Western
Pacific region, the maturity phase is above average, particularly
for infrastructure. Regional trends in the Americas and Eastern
Mediterranean are more variable.
breakdown by region
WHO region:
digital health
maturity phase
Africa 3
The Americas 3
South-East
Asia
4
Eastern
Mediterranean
3
Europe 4
Western
Pacific
4
2 European region is excluded from the digital health ecosystem components category analysis because
Portugal is currently the only country representing this region.

overall and category phases by region
0
1
2
3
4
5
7. SERVICES AND
APPLICATIONS
6. INFRASTRUCTURE5. STANDARDS AND
INTEROPERABILITY
4. WORKFORCE3. LEGISLATION,
POLICY, AND COMPLIANCE
2. STRATEGY
AND INVESTMENT
1. LEADERSHIP
AND GOVERNANCE
WESTERN PACIFICEASTERN MEDITERRANEANSOUTH-EAST ASIATHE AMERICASAFRICA
REGION:
LEAST
MATURE
MOST
MATURE
CASE STUDY 4
Digital Health in Uganda
The Ministry of Health of Uganda launched its eHealth
strategy and policy in 2018, which guides ICT use in
healthcare transformation in Uganda in line with the
country’s health sector development plan. The GDHI
was used to help track progress and identify weaknesses
within Uganda’s digital health initiatives so that it can
mature its digital health policy and practice over time. A
working group including representatives from MEASURE
Evaluation, HealthEnabled, and the Ministry of Health
convened to discuss Uganda’s data input for the GDHI.
The GDHI Uganda working group revealed that commend-
able efforts have been undertaken in Uganda, especially in
digital health leadership and governance structures, devel-
opment and dissemination of a costed eHealth policy and
strategy, and training of digital health workforce. However,
even within these areas, essential gaps remain. These include
compliance of legislation (such as data protection and priva-
cy laws), digital health training among the health workforce
(pre-service, in service, and post-service), interoperability
aspects registries (immunization, client, provider, and facility
registries), digital health workforce policies, national digital
health data exchange standards, digital health infrastructure
governance, and budgeting for eHealth at the national level.
Based on the results from the assessment, the GDHI
Uganda working group made the following recommenda-
tions to strengthen the digital health agenda in Uganda:
• Workforce
−− Advocate for integration of digital health
curriculum in the training of health professionals
at all levels.
−− Introduce a human resources structure for health
informatics and health information systems
graduates in the public sector.
−− Train health workers like nurses and doctors/
physicians on health information systems, e.g.,
DHIS2 should contribute to hours of Continuing
Medical Education.
−− Establish a clear career path and human resource
development for health information personnel.
• Leadership and governance
−− Develop a detailed work plan for eHealth/digital
health strategy implementation.
• Service and Applications
−− Focus on the client management digital health
systems, i.e. how the flow should shift from
paper-based to digital.
uganda gdhi scores
components
digital health
maturity phase
1. Leadership and Governance 3
2. Strategy and Investment 3
3. Legislation, Policy, and Compliance 2
4. Workforce 2
5. Standards and Interoperability 1
6. Infrastructure 1
7. Services and Applications 2

Other Digital Health Trends
In addition to advancements in the enabling environment for
digital health, the field is benefiting from dramatic proliferation of
advancements in technology and innovation, especially in the areas
of connected health, Artificial Intelligence (AI), cognitive computing,
natural language processing, and wearable technology, along with
virtual reality, augmented reality, and gamification. These are leading
to new opportunities to provide more personalized prevention,
diagnostic, and treatment experiences and a new sub-domain within
digital health of Digital Therapeutics. Through strategic collaborations
with Ipsos and Royal Philips Future Health Index, the GDHI is able to
contextualize its observations with other important efforts to monitor
and track trends in the field of digital health.
The Future Health Index’s findings on workforce and the need for
investments in digital health workforce capacity building echo the
GDHI’s as laid out in this report. In particular, Future Health Index found
that a key roadblock to connected care adoption is a simple lack of
understanding with just 47% of healthcare professionals claiming to be
knowledgeable about connected care technology. They also found that
healthcare professionals with less years of experience are more likely to
say they are knowledgeable about connected care technologies, likely
as a result of increased training on digital health in the past decade and
more digital natives in the health workforce — 54% of those with 0-10
years’ experience and 49% of those with 11-19 years’ experience claim
to be so, versus 42% of those with 20 or more years of experience.
The Future Health Index also highlights the major role that AI is playing
in helping transform healthcare and accelerating the journey towards
value-based care. Health systems that deliver effective outcomes and
high levels of healthcare professional and patient satisfaction — such
as those in Singapore, Sweden and the Netherlands — tend to be those
with comparatively high levels of focus on advanced data collection
and analytics. When asked what AI tools or technologies could have the
most impact on improving healthcare, the general population chose
an AI health tracker app or wearable that could automatically track
key health indicators and make related suggestions and AI-enabled

healthcare tools, which provide guidance using historical medical data
to give advice on health management, as the two most promising areas.
One challenge is managing perceptions towards AI, as people generally
want connected care technology to enhance, rather than replace, the
‘human touch’ in healthcare. According to the Future Health Index,
only 11% of the general population said hologram doctors would have
the most impact on improving healthcare today if they were available,
and 10% said the same about robot healthcare professionals. Concerns
around the privacy and security of personal health data are also
prominent barriers to AI implementation. While the Future Health Index
identified that the general population trusts the healthcare industry
most with their personal data, data privacy/security remains a concern
when it comes to AI and data analytics in the healthcare industry.
Similarly, research conducted by Ipsos shows that digital health is
already frequently used in healthcare throughout the world. In the
Ipsos’ 2017 Digital Doctor study of 18 countries across three regions of
the world, Ipsos found that China is leading with 73% of doctors who
use telemedicine for remote consultation. Malaysia, on the other hand,
only has 7% of doctors who use telemedicine, even through Malaysia
is at the highest maturity phase on the GDHI. This discrepancy is due
to Malaysia’s strategic decision to prioritize building digital health
infrastructure, which is measured by the GDHI, before rolling out digital
health services at scale. In addition, Malaysia previously had legislation
to discourage digital health services when the effectiveness of digital
health was yet to be proven, that has since been reversed. Ipsos’ 2018
Global Advisor survey also showed that patient confidence in the data
protection of their personal data by their healthcare providers. 59% of
the 18,813 people surveyed indicated that they trust their healthcare
providers to use their personal data in the right way.
“GDHI highlighted areas that
we were already aware needed
focus — governance, strategy
and interoperability and we do
intend to submit an update to
our assessment as we make
progress. Including more
countries — especially those
public health systems similar to
us (UK, Australia, Canada) would
be useful to provide a more
robust benchmark.”
- darren douglass, ministry of
health, new zealand

Building a Digitally
Enabled Health Workforce
Underpinning any advancements in digital health are people—whether
they are early adopters of technology, champions, pioneers, or the
next generation of digital natives who are entering the workforce not
remembering life before mobile phones and computers. As indicated
through the GDHI, few countries reported having integrated digital
health in their in-service and pre-service training for healthcare
professionals, with less significant gaps among physicians and
more significant gaps in training for nurses and community health
workers. The full potential of digital health will only be achieved
through its effective integration into the curricula and training of
the health professionals that are meant to use them. In addition, as
technology advances new skillsets are needed to harness the benefits
of technology. In late 2018, HealthEnabled and the Digital Frontiers
Institute convened a seminar series, entitled Digital Health Building a
Future Proof Workforce to examine skills needs and gaps. Some of the
key gaps identified included:
• Digital health leaders, managers, and policy-makers
• Digital health program designers and implementers
• Architects, programmers, engineers, and data scientists
• Digital health skills for health professionals: doctors, nurses,
CHWs, and administrators
Specific skills needed for national strategy development include project
and change management, technology and public health technical
expertise, health economics and costing, and political savviness and
skills in facilitating collaboration and coordination since digital health
is multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary. Regarding infrastructure, some
of the key needs identified are skills required to deploy and maintain
hardware, software, and connectivity alongside infrastructure and
architecture as well as the ability to build foundational and reusable
infrastructure that generates economies of scale. New roles that will be
needed include:
• Data scientists
• Business intelligence
• Visualization analysts
• Enterprise architects

• Data architects and modelers
• Machine learning and natural language processing specialists
• Systems networking and communications experts, including
human to machine interaction
• Security and cryptography experts
While data science is not new, there is increasing availability of data,
and the need to improve its effective use are increasing the demand in
health for new data modelling and integration skills. In addition, with
increased adoption and use of technology for health by individuals,
new approaches to data ownership and use are necessary. Similar
new approaches are needed regarding AI, especially regarding new
responsibilities related to ethical considerations.

Where Do We Go
From Here?
This inaugural State of Digital Health Report demonstrates the potential
for the GDHI to help countries increase their visibility into their digital
health maturity and how they compare to others. It also provides
insights into global and regional trends. As more countries participate,
the GDHI will be able to provide a more detailed and accurate picture
of the state of the field with a particular focus on the enablers needed
for digital health to reach its full potential. We invite all interested
countries to contact us at info@digitalhealthindex.org to request a
country link and participate in this important effort.
With increased participation, we anticipate that the overall maturity of
the field will increase as more targeted and coordinated investments
are made. As digital health improves, we believe that this will in turn
strengthen health systems, enable universal health coverage, and
improve health and well-being for all.

Global Digital Health
Index Indicator Guide
The Global Digital Health Index is an
interactive digital resource that tracks,
monitors, and evaluates the use of digital
technology for health across countries.
GDHI uses 19 core indicators across the
seven components of the WHO/ITU eHealth
Strategy Framework to track progress.

leadership and governance
indicator 1: Digital health prioritized at the national level through dedicated bodies /
mechanisms for governance
Does the country have a separate department / agency / national working group for digital health?
1
No coordinating body
exists and/or nascent
governance structure
for digital health is
constituted on a case-
by-case basis.
2
Governance structure
is formally constituted
though not fully-
functional or meeting
regularly.
3
and any related working
groups have a scope of
work (SOW) and conduct
regular meetings with
stakeholder participation
and/or consultation.
4
is fully-functional,
government-led, consults
with other ministries, and
monitors implementation
of digital health based on
a work plan.
5
The digital health
governance structure is
institutionalized, consults
with other ministries, and
monitors implementation
of digital health. It is
relatively protected
from interference
or organizational
changes. It is nationally
recognized as the lead
for digital health. The
governance structure
and its technical working
groups emphasize
gender balance in
membership.
indicator 2: Digital health prioritized at the national level through planning
Is digital health included and budgeted for in national health or relevant national strategies and/or plan(s)?:
The focus of this indicator is on the inclusion of digital health or eHealth in the national health strategy.
1
Digital health is not
included in the national
health strategy. It is
being implemented in an
ad hoc fashion in health
programs.
2
There is some discussion
of inclusion of digital
health in national health
or other relevant national
strategies or plans.
Proposed language
for inclusion of digital
health in national health
or relevant national
strategies and/or plans
has been made and is
under review.
3
Digital health is included
in national health
or relevant national
strategies and/or plans.
4
Digital health is being
implemented as part
of national health or
other relevant national
strategies and/or plans.
5
Digital health is
implemented and
periodically evaluated
and optimized in national
health or other relevant
national strategies and/
or plans.
LOW HIGH

1
There is no law on
data security (storage,
transmission, use) that is
relevant to digital health.
2
There is a law on data
security (storage,
relevant to digital health
that has been proposed
and is under review.
3
security (storage,
relevant to digital health
that has been passed,
but has not yet been fully
implemented.
4
security (storage,
transmission, use) that
is relevant to digital
health that has been
implemented, but not
consistently enforced.
1
There is no digital health
strategy or framework.
Draft digital health
strategy or framework
developed, but not
officially reviewed.
2
National digital health
strategy or framework
approved.
3
costed plan developed
and approved.
4
strategy and costed plan
partially implemented
with resources to ensure
full implementation.
5
strategy and costed plan
fully implemented with
planning underway for
the next 3-5 year cycle.
5
security (storage,
transmission, use) that
is relevant to digital
health that has been
implemented and
enforced consistently.
strategy and investment
indicator 3: National eHealth/ Digital Health Strategy or Framework
Does the country have an eHealth or digital health strategy or framework and a costed digital health plan?
1
No budget line item for
digital health available.
A budget line item for
digital health exists but
proportion not available.
2
Less than 1%.
3
1-3%
4
3-5%
5
Greater than 5%
indicator 4: Public funding for digital health
What is the estimated percent (%) of the annual public spending on health committed to digital health?
LOW HIGH
legislation, policy, and compliance
indicator 5: Legal Framework for Data Protection (Security)
Is there a law on data security (storage, transmission, use) that is relevant to digital health?
legislation, policy, and compliance, continues →

legislation, policy, and compliance, continued
indicator 6: Laws or Regulations for privacy, confidentiality and access to health
information (Privacy)
Is there a law to protect individual privacy, governing ownership, access and sharing of individually
identifiable digital health data?
LOW HIGH
1
There is no law to
protect individual privacy,
governing ownership,
access and sharing of
individually identifiable
digital health data.
2
There is a law to protect
individual privacy,
digital health data that
has been proposed and is
under review.
3
individual privacy,
has been passed, but not
yet fully implemented.
4
individual privacy,
has been implemented,
but not consistently
enforced.
5
individual privacy,
has been implemented
and is enforced
consistently.
indicator 8: Cross-border data security and sharing
Are there protocols, policies, frameworks or accepted processes in place to support secure cross-border
data exchange and storage? Note: This includes health-related data coming into a country, going out of a
country, and/or being used in a country related to an individual from another country.
1
There are no protocols,
policies, frameworks or
accepted processes in
place to support secure
cross-border data
exchange and storage.
2
Protocols, policies,
frameworks or accepted
processes for cross
boarder data exchange
and storage have been
proposed and are under
review.
3
processes for cross
passed, but are not fully
implemented.
4
processes for cross
5
processes for cross
implemented and
indicator 7: Protocol for regulating or certifying devices and/or digital health services
Are there protocols, policies, frameworks or accepted processes governing the clinical and patient care
use of connected medical devices and digital health services (e.g. telemedicine, applications), particularly in
relation to safety, data integrity and quality of care?
1
There are no protocols,
policies, frameworks
or accepted processes
governing the clinical
and patient care
use of connected
medical devices and
digital health services
(e.g. telemedicine,
applications), particularly
in relation to safety, data
integrity and quality
of care.
2
processes governing
the clinical and patient
care use of connected
medical devices and
digital health services
(e.g. telemedicine,
applications), particularly
in relation to safety, data
integrity and quality of
care have been proposed
and are under review.
3
processes governing the
clinical and patient care
use of connected med-
ical devices and digital
health services (e.g. tele-
medicine, applications),
particularly in relation to
safety, data integrity and
quality of care have been
passed, but are not fully
implemented.
4
5
implemented and are

LOW HIGH
1
curriculum for health
professionals as part
of pre-service training
requirements.
2
Digital health curriculum
proposed and under
review as part of
pre-service training
requirements.
3
implementation
underway covering an
estimated 0-25% of
health professionals in
pre-service training.
4
Digital health taught in
relevant institutions with
an estimated 50-75%
health professionals
receiving pre-service
training.
5
Digital health taught
in relevant institutions
with 75% of health
professionals receiving
workforce
indicator 9: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
(prior to deployment)
Is digital health part of curriculum for health and health-related support professionals in training, in general?
1
curriculum for doctors/
physicians as part of
requirements.
2
proposed and under
review as part of
requirements for
doctors/physicians.
3
implementation
underway covering
an estimated 0-25%
doctors/physicians in
4
an estimated 50-75%
of doctors/physicians
receiving pre-service
training.
5
Digital health taught
in relevant institutions
with 75% of doctors/
physicians receiving pre-
service training.
indicator 9a: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for doctors/physicians in medical training?
1
curriculum for nurses
as part of pre-service
training requirements.
2
proposed and under
review as part of
requirements for nurses.
3
implementation
underway covering an
estimated 0-25% or
4
an estimated 50-75% of
nurses receiving pre-
service training.
5
75% of nurses receiving
indicator 9b: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for nurses in pre-service training?
workforce, continues →

workforce, continued
indicator 9c: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for health and health-related support professionals in training
for community health workers?
1
There is no digital
health curriculum for
health professionals
as part of pre-service
training requirements
for community health
workers.
2
proposed and under
review as part of
requirements for
community health
workers.
3
implementation
underway covering
an estimated 0-25%
of community health
workers in pre-service
training.
4
an estimated 50-75%
of community health
workers receiving pre-
service training.
5
relevant instutitions with
75% of community
health workers receiving
indicator 10: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for health and health-related support professionals in
the workforce in general? [Defined as community health workers, nurses, doctors, allied health, health
managers/administrators, and technologists]
1
curriculum as part of
in-service (continuing
education) training for
the workforce.
2
proposed and under
review as part of in-
service (continuing
the workforce.
3
is implemented as part
of in-service (continuing
education) training
for 0-25% health
professionals in the
workforce.
4
education) training
for 50-75% health
workforce.
5
is implemented as
part of in-service
(continuing education)
training for 75% health
workforce.
indicator 10a: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for doctors/physicians in the workforce?
1
doctors/physicians in the
workforce.
2
proposed and under
service (continuing
doctors/physicians in the
workforce.
3
education) training
for 0-25% of doctors/
physicians in the
workforce.
4
50-75% of doctors/
physicians in the
workforce.
5
education) training
for 75% of doctors/
physicians in the
workforce.
LOW HIGH

indicator 10b: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for nurses in the workforce?
1
nurses in the workforce.
2
proposed and under
service (continuing
nurses in the workforce.
3
0-25% of nurses in the
workforce.
4
50-75% of nurses in the
workforce.
5
75% of nurses in the
workforce.
LOW HIGH
1
There is no digital
health curriculum
as part of in-service
(continuing education)
training for community
health workers in the
workforce.
2
proposed and under
service (continuing
education) training
for community health
workers in the workforce.
3
0-25% of community
workforce.
4
50-75% of community
workforce.
5
75% of community
workforce.
indicator 10c: Digital health integrated in health and related professional pre-service training
Specifically, is digital health part of curriculum for community health workers in the workforce?
1
There is no training
available for digital heath
workforce available in
the country.
2
Digital heath workforce
needs assessed,
gaps identified and
training options under
development.
3
Professional training is
available, but graduates
are not yet deployed.
4
Trained digital health
professionals available
and deployed, but
essential personnel gaps
remain.
5
Sufficient numbers of
trained digital health
professionals available to
support national digital
health needs.
indicator 11: Training of digital health work force
In general, is training in digital health / health informatics / health information systems / biomedical
informatics degree programs (in either public or private institutions) producing trained digital health workers?
workforce, continues →

indicator 11a: Training of digital health work force
Specifically, is training in health and/or biomedical informatics (in either public or private institutions)
producing trained informaticists or health information systems specialists?
LOW HIGH
1
There is no training
available in informatics
or health information
systems available in the
country.
2
Health informatics
workforce needs
assessed, gaps identified
and training options
under development.
3
Professional training
in health informatics is
available, but graduates
are not yet deployed.
4
Trained informatics
professionals available
and deployed, but
essential personnel gaps
remain.
5
Sufficient numbers
of trained health
informatics professionals
available to support
national health
information system
needs.
indicator 12: Maturity of public sector digital health professional careers
Are there public sector professional titles and career paths in digital health?
1
No workforce strategy,
policy, or guide that
recognizes digital health
is in place. Distribution of
digital health work force
is ad hoc.
2
A national needs
assessment shows the
number and types of
skills needed to support
digital health with an
explicit focus on training
cadres of female health
workers.
3
Digital health staff roles
and responsibilities
are mapped to the
government's workforce
and career schemes and
25-50% of needed public
sector digital health
workforce in place.
4
An HR policy and stra-
tegic plan exists that
identifies skills and func-
tions needed to support
digital health with an
explicit focus on training
cadres of female health
workers and an estimated
50-75% of public sector
digital health workforce
in place.
5
A long-term plan is in
place to grow and sustain
staff with the skills needed
to sustain digital health at
national and subnational
levels with an explicit
focus on training cadres
of female health workers
with an estimated 75%
of positions needed filled.
Performance manage-
ment systems are in place
to ensure growth and
sustainability of the digital
health workforce with
sufficient supply to meet
digital health needs and
little staff turnover.

LOW HIGH
1
There is no national
digital health (eHealth)
architectural framework
and/or health
information exchange
(HIE) established.
2
A national digital health
architecture and/or
health information
exchange (HIE) has
been proposed, but
not approved including
semantic, syntactic, and
organizational layers.
3
The national digital
health architecture and/
exchange (HIE) is
operable and provides
core functions, such
as authentication,
translation, storage and
warehousing function,
guide to what data
is available and how
to access it, and data
interpretation.
4
The government leads,
manages, and enforces
implementation of the
national digital health
architecture and/or
the health information
exchange (HIE), which
are fully implemented
following industry
standards.
5
The national digital
health architecture and/
exchange (HIE) provides
core data exchange
functions and is peri-
odically reviewed and
updated to meet the
needs of the changing
digital health architec-
ture. There is continuous
learning, innovation, and
quality control. Data is
actively used for national
health strategic planning
and budgeting.
standards and interoperability
indicator 13: National digital health architecture and/or health information exchange
Is there a national digital health (eHealth) architectural framework and/or health information exchange
(HIE) established?
1
There are no digital
health / health
information standards
for data exchange,
transmission, messaging,
security, privacy, and
hardware.
2
There are some
digital health / health
for data exchange,
security, privacy, and
hardware that have been
adopted and/or are used.
3
Digital health / health
for data exchange,
security, privacy,
and hardware have
been published and
disseminated in the
country under the
government’s leadership.
4
Digital health / health in-
formation industry-based
technical standards for
data exchange, transmis-
sion, messaging, security,
privacy, and hardware are
in use in the majority of
applications and systems
to ensure the availabil-
ity of high-quality data.
Conformance testing is
routinely carried out to
certify implementers.
5
Data standards are
routinely updated and
data is actively used
for monitoring and
evaluating the health
system and for national
health strategic planning
and budgeting.
indicator 14: Health information standards
Are there digital health / health information standards for data exchange, transmission, messaging, security,
privacy, and hardware?

infrastructure
indicator 15: Network readiness
Extract the WEF Network Readiness Index score
LOW HIGH
1
National priority areas are
not supported by digital
health at any scale.
2
Few national priority
areas are supported
by digital health, and
implementation initiated
( 25% priority areas).
3
Some national priority
areas supported by
scaled digital health
systems (25-50% of
priority areas).
4
The majority, but not all
national priority areas
(50-75% of priority areas)
supported by scaled
digital health systems.
1
1.0 - 3.3
2
3.3 - 4.0
3
4.0 - 5.0
4
5.0 - 5.4
5
5.4 - 7.0
indicator 16: Planning and support for ongoing digital health infrastructure maintenance
Is there an articulated plan for supporting digital health infrastructure (including equipment — computers/
tablets/phones, supplies, software, devices, etc.) provision and maintenance?
1
There is no articulated
plan for supporting
digital health
infrastructure (including
equipment — computers/
tablets/phones, supplies,
software, devices,
etc.) provision and
maintenance.
2
A plan for supporting
digital health
infrastructure (including
software, devices,
etc.) provision and
maintenance has been
developed, but not
implemented.
3
digital health infra-
structure (including
software, devices, etc.)
provision and mainte-
nance has been imple-
mented partially, but not
consistently with estimat-
ed 0-25% of necessary
digital health infrastruc-
ture needed in public
healthcare service sector
available and in use.
4
digital health infra-
provision and main-
tenance has been
implemented partially
and consistently with
estimated 25-50% of
necessary digital health
infrastructure needed in
public healthcare service
sector available and
in use.
5
Digital health infra-
is available, in use, and
regularly maintained and
upgraded in 75% of
public healthcare service
sector.
5
All nationally prioritized
areas supported by
national-scale digital
health systems (75%)
with monitoring and
evaluation systems and
results.
services and applications
indicator 17: Nationally scaled digital health systems
Public sector priorities (e.g. 14 domains included in ISO TR 14639) are supported by nationally-scaled digital
health systems
services and applications, continues →

1
Health system registries
of uniquely identifiable
providers, administrators,
and public facilities (and
private if applicable) are
not available, accessible
and current.
2
being developed but are
not available for use.
3
private if applicable)
are available for use,
but incomplete,
partially available,
used sporadically, and
irregularly maintained.
4
private if applicable)
are available, used, and
regularly updated and
maintained. The data is
geo-tagged to enable
GIS mapping.
5
available, up-to-date with
geo-tagged data, and
used for health system
and service strategic
planning and budgeting.
services and applications, continued
indicator 18: Digital identity management of service providers, administrators, and facilities for
digital health, including location data for GIS mapping
Are health system registries of uniquely identifiable providers, administrators, and public facilities (and private
if applicable) available, accessible and current? Is the data geotagged to enable GIS mapping?
1
No secure registry or
master patient index
exists.
2
A secure registry exists,
but is incomplete /
partially available,
used, and irregularly
maintained.
3
is available and in active
use and includes 25% of
the relevant population.
4
A secure registry exists, is
available and in active use
and includes 25-50% of
5
is available and in active
use and includes 75% of
The data is available,
used, and curated.
indicator 19: Digital identity management of individuals for health
Are secure registries or a master patient index of uniquely identifiable individuals available, accessible and
current for use for health-related purposes?
1
No secure master patient
index exists.
2
A master patient index
exists, but is incomplete
/ partially available,
maintained.
3
exists, is available and in
active use and includes
25% of the relevant
population.
4
25-50% of the relevant
population.
5
75% of the relevant
population. The data
is available, used, and
curated.
services and applications, continues →
indicator 19a: Digital identity management of individuals for health
Specifically, is there a secure master patient index of uniquely identifiable individuals available, accessible and

services and applications, continued
indicator 19b: Digital identity management of individuals for health
Specifically, is there a secure birth registry of uniquely identifiable individuals available, accessible and current
for use for health-related purposes?
1
No secure birth registry
exists.
2
A secure birth registry
maintained.
3
25% of the relevant
population.
4
population.
5
75% of the relevant
curated.
indicator 19c: Digital identity management of individuals for health
Specifically, is there a secure death registry of uniquely identifiable individuals available, accessible and
1
No secure death registry
exists.
2
A secure death registry
maintained.
3
25% of the relevant
population.
4
population.
5
75% of the relevant
curated.
indicator 19d: Digital identity management of individuals for health
Specifically, is there a secure immunization registry of uniquely identifiable individuals available, accessible
and current for use for health-related purposes?
1
No secure immunization
registry exists.
2
A secure immunization
registry exists, but is
incomplete / partially
available, used, and
irregularly maintained.
3
registry exists, is available
and in active use and
includes 25% of the
relevant population.
4
includes 25-50% of the
relevant population.
5
includes 75% of the
relevant population. The
data is available, used,
and curated.
LOW HIGH

The Global Digital Health Index (GDHI) is an interactive digital resource that
tracks, monitors, and evaluates the use of digital technology for health across
countries. The GDHI is a multi-stakeholder initiative led by a Steering Committee
with representation of Ministries of Health, WHO, the Commonwealth Medical
Association (CMA), Asia eHealth Information Network (AeHIN), Johnson Johnson,
Royal Philips, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and USAID. The GDHI is
incubated by the Global Development Incubator (GDI) with digital health technical
leadership and facilitation provided by HealthEnabled in collaboration with Dalberg’s
Design Impact Group (DIG), ThoughtWorks, and representatives from 20+ countries
and 50+ international agencies and organizations.
Learn more at DigitalHealthIndex.org.
The Global Development Incubator (GDI) builds startups and partnerships to
address some of the world's toughest global development challenges. We provide
strategic guidance and implementation support to get high-potential social impact
ideas off the ground over 12-36 months. Throughout each stage of our process, we
bring together the right partners across sectors — including corporations, nonprofits,
governments, and foundations — to help new initiatives scale their impact and
prepare for long-term success. Above all, we turn talk into action by matching
ambitious leaders, strong concepts, and funding with the executional power required
to launch and scale social impact efforts.
Learn more at GlobalDevIncubator.org.
HealthEnabled is an Africa-based not-for profit that helps governments integrate
proven life-saving digital health interventions into their health systems. Arising from
the mHealth Alliance in 2014, we have built upon the former organization’s mission
and work to further accelerate the impact of digital health in the ‘Global South’.
We are accomplishing our mission by partnering with national governments
and other large health implementers to develop and operationalize their digital
health strategies. In particular, we work at the country level to: 1) support policy
development for digital health integration and acceleration, 2) build coalitions for
effective and efficient digital health, 3) ensure implementation through appropriate
resource allocation and accountability frameworks, and 4) strengthen mechanisms
for long-term capacity.
At the global level, we drive digital health progress through advocacy and thought
leadership, collective action, and evaluation of the state of the field through our work
on the Global Digital Health Index and other multi-stakeholder collaborations.
Learn more at HealthEnabled.org.
about the organizations

Global Digital Health Index 2019

Global Digital Health Index 2019

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Global Digital Health Index 2019 (20)

More from Prof. Rajendra Pratap Gupta (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Global Digital Health Index 2019