In the wake of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several nations have sought to implement digital vaccine passports (DVPs) to enable the resumption of international travel. Comprising a minimum dataset for each unique individual, DVPs have the makings of a global electronic health record, broaching key issues involved in building a global digital health ecosystem. Debate simulations offer a safe, interactive space to foster participatory policy discussions for advancing digital health diplomacy. This study used an online simulation of a Model World Health Assembly to critically analyze the sociotechnical issues associated with the global implementation of DVPs, and to generate useful insights and questions about the role of diplomacy in global digital health. The debate arguments addressed and provided insights into the technological, scientific, ethical, legal, policy, and societal aspects of DVPs. Reflecting on the simulation, we discuss its opportunities and challenges for the digitalization, decolonization, decentralization, and democratization of participatory policymaking.

OBJECTIVE: A literature review of capability maturity models (MMs) to inform the conceptualization, development, implementation, evaluation, and mainstreaming of MMs in digital health (DH). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched using "digital health," "maturity models," and related terms based on the Digital Health Profile and Maturity Assessment Toolkit Maturity Model (DHPMAT-MM). Covidence was used to screen, identify, capture, and achieve consensus on data extracted by the authors. Descriptive statistics were generated. A thematic analysis and conceptual synthesis were conducted. FINDINGS: Diverse domain-specific MMs and model development, implementation, and evaluation methods were found. The spread and pattern of different MMs verified the essential DH foundations and five maturity stages of the DHPMAT-MM. An unanticipated finding was the existence of a new category of community-facing MMs. Common characteristics included:1. A dynamic lifecycle approach to digital capability maturity, which is:a. responsive to environmental changes and may improve or worsen over time;b. accumulative, incorporating the attributes of the preceding stage; andc. sequential, where no maturity stage must be skipped.2. Sociotechnical quality improvement of the DH ecosystem and MM, which includes:a. investing in the organization's human, hardware, and software resources andb. a need to engage and improve the DH competencies of citizens. CONCLUSIONS: The diversity in MMs and variability in methods and content can create cognitive dissonance. A metamodel like the DHPMAT-MM can logically unify the many domain-specific MMs and guide the overall implementation and evaluation of DH ecosystems and MMs over the maturity lifecycle.

Actualizing the vision of Global Digital Health is a central issue on the Global Health Diplomacy agenda. The COVID-reinforced need for accelerated digital health progress will require political structures and processes to build a foundation for Global Digital Health. Simultaneously, Global Health Diplomacy uses digital technologies in its enactment. Both phenomena have driven interest in the term "Digital Health Diplomacy." A review of the literature revealed 2 emerging but distinct definitions that have been published very recently, each with its associated discourse and practice. This multiplicity of ideas demonstrates the myriad ways in which global digital and political systems are becoming increasingly entangled. Untangling these, this paper proposes and discusses 3 dimensions of Digital Health Diplomacy: "Diplomacy for digital health," "Digital health for diplomacy," and "Digital health in diplomacy." It calls upon digital health professionals, diplomats, political and social scientists, epidemiologists, and clinicians to discuss, critique, and advance this emerging domain.

OBJECTIVE: Toolkits are an important knowledge translation strategy for implementing digital health. We studied how toolkits for the implementation and evaluation of digital health were developed, tested, and reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of toolkits that had been used, field tested or evaluated in practice, and published in the English language from 2009 to July 2019. We searched several electronic literature sources to identify both peer-reviewed and gray literature, and records were screened as per systematic review conventions. RESULTS: Thirteen toolkits were eventually identified, all of which were developed in North America, Europe, or Australia. All reported their intended purpose, as well as their development process. Eight of the 13 toolkits involved a literature review, 3 did not, and 2 were unclear. Twelve reported an underlying conceptual framework, theory, or model: 3 cited the normalization process theory and 3 others cited the World Health Organization and International Telecommunication Union eHealth Strategy. Seven toolkits were reportedly evaluated, but details were unavailable. Forty-three toolkits were excluded for lack of field-testing. DISCUSSION: Despite a plethora of published toolkits, few were tested, and even fewer were evaluated. Methodological rigor was of concern, as several did not include an underlying conceptual framework, literature review, or evaluation and refinement in real-world settings. Reporting was often inconsistent and unclear, and toolkits rarely reported being evaluated. CONCLUSION: Greater attention needs to be paid to rigor and reporting when developing, evaluating, and reporting toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health so that they can effectively function as a knowledge translation strategy.

OBJECTIVE: Data quality (DQ) must be consistently defined in context. The attributes, metadata, and context of longitudinal real-world data (RWD) have not been formalized for quality improvement across the data production and curation life cycle. We sought to complete a literature review on DQ assessment frameworks, indicators and tools for research, public health, service, and quality improvement across the data life cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Databases from health, physical and social sciences were used: Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, Emcare, PsycINFO, Compendex, and Inspec. Embase was used instead of PubMed (an interface to search MEDLINE) because it includes all MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms used and journals in MEDLINE as well as additional unique journals and conference abstracts. A combined data life cycle and quality framework guided the search of published and gray literature for DQ frameworks, indicators, and tools. At least 2 authors independently identified articles for inclusion and extracted and categorized DQ concepts and constructs. All authors discussed findings iteratively until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The 120 included articles yielded concepts related to contextual (data source, custodian, and user) and technical (interoperability) factors across the data life cycle. Contextual DQ subcategories included relevance, usability, accessibility, timeliness, and trust. Well-tested computable DQ indicators and assessment tools were also found. CONCLUSIONS: A DQ assessment framework that covers intrinsic, technical, and contextual categories across the data life cycle enables assessment and management of RWD repositories to ensure fitness for purpose. Balancing security, privacy, and FAIR principles requires trust and reciprocity, transparent governance, and organizational cultures that value good documentation.