Umeå University's logo

Background: The transition of social health care tools from paper-based to web-based formats is increasingly common in social and health care settings. While digital delivery may improve accessibility, flexibility, and scalability, such transitions require careful adaptation of content, design, and workflows. However, evidence on how these transitions are carried out in practice, and which challenges and strategies are involved, remains fragmented.

Objective: This scoping review aimed to map how social health care tools have transitioned from paper-based to web-based formats and to synthesize evidence on tool characteristics and target groups, adaptations made during the transition, strategies and methodologies used, and reported challenges and solutions.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify English-language empirical studies describing the transition of social health care tools from paper-based to web-based formats. Social health care tools were defined as technologies supporting communication, reflection, or informed decision-making among patients, family caregivers, and/or health care professionals. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Targeted gray literature searches were conducted to supplement missing information about the included tools. Findings were synthesized narratively and presented in tables.

Results: Eleven tools were included. Most were delivered as web-based platforms (n=8), with additional tools delivered as mobile apps (n=2) or in a game-based format (n=1). The tools targeted diverse populations, including people with chronic or life-limiting conditions, family caregivers, adolescents, parents, pregnant women, and health care professionals. Reported reasons for transitioning to digital formats included improving accessibility and reach (n=7), enhancing user engagement through interactive features (n=5), and increasing efficiency or scalability (n=3). Across tools, core content was largely retained, while adaptations mainly focused on format and delivery, such as multimedia elements, interactive modules, tailored feedback, and usability improvements. User-centered and participatory design approaches were commonly reported, sometimes combined with iterative or agile development methods. Common challenges included usability issues, low engagement, technical integration difficulties, administrative delays, and resource constraints, with solutions focusing on iterative redesign, clearer instructions, increased interactivity, and hybrid paper-digital approaches.

Conclusions: This scoping review examines the process of transitioning social health care tools from paper-based to web-based formats, rather than focusing solely on effectiveness outcomes. It synthesizes how adaptations are made, which strategies are used, and which challenges arise during digitalization. The findings identify common adaptation patterns and gaps in reporting, particularly regarding target group–specific design and equity considerations. These insights may support developers, researchers, and policymakers in planning more usable, inclusive, and context-sensitive digital transitions in social and health care settings.