Background: Emerging evidence suggests that positive impacts can be generated when digital health interventions are designed to be responsive to the cultural and socioeconomic context of their intended audiences. Objective: This narrative review aims to synthesize the literature about the cultural adaptation of digital health interventions. It examines how concepts of culture and context feature in design and development processes, including the methods, models, and content of these interventions, with the aim of helping researchers to make informed decisions about how to approach cultural adaptation in digital health. Methods: Literature searches for this narrative review were conducted across 4 databases. Following full-text article screening by 2 authors, 16 studies of interventions predominantly focused on the self-management of health were selected based on their detailed focus on the process of cultural adaptation. Key considerations for cultural adaptation were identified and synthesized through a qualitative narrative approach, enabling an integrative and in-depth understanding of cultural adaptation. Results: The literature demonstrates varying approaches and levels of cultural adaptation across stages of intervention development, involving considerations such as the research ethos orienting researchers, the methodologies and models used, and the resultant content adaptations. In relation to the latter, culturally appropriate and accessible user interface design and translation can be seen as particularly important in shaping the level of adaptation. Conclusions: Optimizing cultural adaptation involves linking culture with other contextual factors such as economic conditions and social systems to ensure accessibility and the sustained use of digital health interventions. Culturally humble approaches that use the involvement of a broad range of participants, experts, and other stakeholders are demonstrated to spark vital insights for content development, implementation, and evaluation.

Explorations of barriers and enablers (or barriers and facilitators) to a desired health practice, implementation process, or intervention outcome have become so prevalent that they seem to be a default in much health services and public health research. In this article, we argue that decisions to frame research questions or analyses using barriers and enablers (B&Es) should not be default. Contrary to the strengths of qualitative research, the B&Es approach often bypasses critical reflexivity and can lead to shallow research findings with poor understanding of the phenomena of interest. The B&Es approach is untheorised, relying on assumptions of linear, unidirectional processes, universally desirable outcomes, and binary thinking which are at odds with the rich understanding of context and complexity needed to respond to the challenges faced by health services and public health. We encourage researchers to develop research questions using informed deliberation that considers a range of approaches and their implications for producing meaningful knowledge. Alternatives and enhancements to the B&Es approach are explored, including using ‘whole package’ methodologies; theories, conceptual frameworks, and sensitising ideas; and participatory methods. We also consider ways of advancing existing research on B&Es rather than doing ‘more of the same’: researchers can usefully investigate how a barrier or enabler works in depth; develop and test implementation strategies for addressing B&Es; or synthesise the B&Es literature to develop a new model or theory. Illustrative examples from the literature are provided. We invite further discussion on this topic.

Background: Digital technologies are widely recognized for their equalizing effect, improving access to affordable health care regardless of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or geographic region. The Thrive by Five app is designed to promote positive interactions between children and their parents, extended family, and trusted members of the community to support socioemotional and cognitive development in the first 5 years of life and to strengthen connections to culture and community. Objective: This paper aims to describe the iterative co-design process that underpins the development and refinement of Thrive by Five’s features, functions, and content. Minderoo Foundation commissioned this work as a quality improvement activity to support an engaging user experience and inform the development of culturally appropriate and relevant content for parents and caregivers in each country where the app is implemented. Methods: The app content, referred to as Collective Actions, comprises “The Why,” that presents scientific principles that underpin socioemotional and cognitive development in early childhood. The scientific information is coupled with childrearing activities for parents, extended family, and members of the community to engage in with the children to support their healthy development and to promote positive connections between parents, families, and communities and these young children. Importantly, the initial content is designed and iteratively refined in collaboration with a subject matter expert group from each country (ie, alpha testing). This content is then configured into the app (either a beta version or localized version) for testing (ie, beta testing) by local parents and caregivers as well as experts who are invited to provide their feedback and suggestions for improvements in app content, features, and functions via a brief web-based survey and a series of co-design workshops. The quantitative survey data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, whereas the analysis of qualitative data from the workshops will follow established thematic techniques. Results: To date, the co-design protocol has been completed with subject matter experts, parents, and caregivers from 9 countries, with the first results expected to be published by early 2023. The protocol will be implemented serially in the remaining 21 countries. Conclusions: Mobile technologies are the primary means of internet connection in many countries worldwide, which underscores the potential for mobile health programs to improve access to valuable, evidence-based, and previously unavailable parenting information. However, for maximum impact, it is critically important to ensure that mobile health programs are designed in collaboration with the target audience to support the alignment of content with parents’ cultural values and traditions and its relevance to their needs and circumstances. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39225

The effectiveness of many interventions to promote health and prevent disease has been well established. The imperative has therefore shifted from amassing evidence about efficacy to scale-up to maximise population-level health gains. Electronic implementation monitoring, or ‘e-monitoring’, systems have been designed to assist and track the delivery of preventive policies and programs. However, there is little evidence on whether e-monitoring systems improve the dissemination, adoption, and ongoing delivery of evidence-based preventive programs. Also, given considerable difficulties with e-monitoring systems in the clinical sector, scholars have called for a more sophisticated re-examination of e-monitoring’s role in enhancing implementation. In the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, the Population Health Information Management System (PHIMS) was created to support the dissemination of obesity prevention programs to 6000 childcare centres and elementary schools across all 15 local health districts. We have established a three-way university-policymaker-practice research partnership to investigate the impact of PHIMS on practice, how PHIMS is used, and how achievement of key performance indicators of program adoption may be associated with local contextual factors. Our methods encompass ethnographic observation, key informant interviews and participatory workshops for data interpretation at a state and local level. We use an on-line social network analysis of the collaborative relationships across local health district health promotion teams to explore the relationship between PHIMS use and the organisational structure of practice. Insights will be sensitised by institutional theory, practice theory and complex adaptive system thinking, among other theories which make sense of socio-technical action. Our working hypothesis is that the science of getting evidence-based programs into practice rests on an in-depth understanding of the role they play in the on-going system of local relationships and multiple accountabilities. Data will be synthesised to produce a typology to characterise local context, PHIMS use and key performance indicator achievement (of program implementation) across the 15 local health districts. Results could be used to continuously align e-monitoring technologies within quality improvement processes to ensure that such technologies enhance practice and innovation. A partnership approach to knowledge production increases the likelihood that findings will be put into practice.

To map how public health is funded in Australia. To assess whether changes to funding methods might improve system performance. Review of publicly accessible documents and discussions with public health key informants. Australia spent $140 per person on public health in 2019-20, (1.8% of total health spending). But there is considerable state and territory variation. This money flows through multiple channels and payment mechanisms. Responsibility for what is funded is largely delegated to authorities close to the problems. This makes it easier to choose the best mechanism for funding an activity. Much information is hidden from view, however. This makes it impossible to assess whether the potential for population benefit is fully realised. Australia avoids some of the difficulties experienced elsewhere because funding is largely devolved to states in block grants; they shape their own investments. The US, by contrast, prefers categorical funds for specific purposes. Three suggestions for making the funding system here more visible, useful and accountable are canvassed, including 'satellite accounts'. Funding needs to be more transparent before it is possible to assess whether public health system performance could be improved through changes to the way public health is funded.