Beyond digital health: public and community digital interventions for migrant psychosocial well-being in Spain and Argentina

The rapid digitalization of services for migrant populations has transformed the ways in which information, guidance, and social support are delivered. However, existing research has primarily focused on clinical digital mental health interventions or on migrants' own uses of digital technologies, paying considerably less attention to digital devices developed by public institutions and community organizations. This study comparatively analyzes four digital intervention devices implemented in Spain and Argentina, two public and two community-based, to examine how they may contribute to psychosocial well-being from a social determinants of health perspective. Using a qualitative design based on digital ethnography and comparative thematic content analysis, the study explores the characteristics, functions, and intervention strategies of these digital resources, with particular attention to their roles in information provision, guidance, psychosocial support, and community participation. The findings show that these digital resources function as hybrid intervention ecosystems that integrate technological tools, professional support, and community networks rather than merely providing information. Four predominant intervention models were identified: administrative-information, institutional guidance and service access, rights-based community, and community guidance, accompaniment, and referral. Together, these models offer a novel analytical framework for understanding the diverse roles of digital interventions in migration contexts. Rather than providing direct therapeutic care, these devices contribute to psychosocial well-being by reducing barriers to access, strengthening social support networks, promoting rights, and facilitating connections with specialized services. By shifting the focus from clinical digital health to digital social intervention ecosystems, this study expands current debates on digital interventions for migrant populations and provides practical implications for the development of more inclusive, accessible, and culturally responsive digital resources aimed at promoting psychosocial well-being.

Migration and psychosocial well-being: a social determinants of health perspective

Migration is one of the defining social phenomena of the twenty-first century and represents a major life transition that reshapes individuals’ living conditions, social relationships, and access to resources. Although most migrants adapt successfully to their new environments and demonstrate considerable resilience, the migration experience may involve cumulative exposure to vulnerability factors that affect psychosocial well-being (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2024; World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). Research has progressively shifted from models centred on trauma and psychopathology towards approaches that conceptualize mental health as the product of interactions between individual, social, economic, cultural, and institutional factors (WHO, 2022). From this perspective, migrant status is not inherently a risk factor for poor mental health. Rather, psychological distress arises primarily from the conditions under which migration takes place, including economic hardship, legal insecurity, administrative barriers, discrimination, and social exclusion (IOM, 2024; WHO, 2022). This perspective is grounded in the social determinants of health framework, which recognizes that access to housing, employment, education, healthcare, social protection, and opportunities for community participation fundamentally shapes both physical and mental well-being (WHO, 2022). For migrants, these determinants are especially relevant because migration often entails simultaneous changes, including the loss or weakening of social support networks, adaptation to a new sociocultural environment, uncertainty regarding legal status, language barriers, and experiences of discrimination or xenophobia (IOM, 2024; Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2012). Migration-related stress is therefore best understood as a dynamic process emerging from the interaction between the demands of the receiving context and the personal and community resources available to cope with them (Berry, 1997; Bhugra, 2004). Stress tends to intensify under conditions such as irregular legal status, housing insecurity, precarious employment, or limited social support, increasing the likelihood of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and diminished subjective well-being (WHO, 2022). Complementing this perspective, the concept of migratory grief highlights the multiple losses associated with migration, including family, cultural, linguistic, identity-related, and territorial losses, as a complex adaptive process that should not necessarily be interpreted as pathological but rather as an expected response to profound life change (Achotegui, 2009).

Among the determinants consistently associated with migrant mental health, discrimination emerges as one of the most influential. Experiences of racism, stigmatization, and social exclusion have repeatedly been linked to higher levels of psychological distress, anxiety, depression, and lower subjective well-being, regardless of migrants’ country of origin or length of residence (Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2012; WHO, 2022). Likewise, uncertainty surrounding legal status and barriers to exercising fundamental rights generate prolonged insecurity, restrict access to essential resources, and hinder processes of social inclusion (IOM, 2024). Conversely, social support represents one of the strongest protective factors for psychosocial well-being (Nguyen et al., 2023; Song et al., 2025). Family, community, and institutional networks not only facilitate coping with migration-related challenges but also reduce isolation, foster a sense of belonging within the host society, and strengthen individuals’ capacity to navigate complex administrative systems through access to reliable information, legal guidance, and community resources (WHO, 2022; Yang et al., 2023). Taken together, this evidence indicates that promoting migrant mental health extends well beyond the provision of clinical care. Psychosocial well-being also depends on the ability to exercise rights, understand institutional systems, establish supportive relationships, participate in community life, and access the resources needed to navigate the migration process (IOM, 2024; WHO, 2022). Consequently, social, community-based, and institutional interventions should be understood as central components of mental health promotion because they address the social determinants that shape opportunities for integration, access to rights, and community participation (Hynie, 2018). As access to these resources increasingly occurs through digital environments, the analysis of digital intervention ecosystems becomes particularly relevant. These ecosystems encompass the digital spaces through which public institutions and third-sector organizations provide information, guidance, support, and opportunities for participation, thereby potentially reducing barriers to access, strengthening individual autonomy, and promoting psychosocial well-being (Preiss, 2022).

The digital transformation of migrant reception and inclusion processes

The digital transformation of public administrations and third-sector organizations has profoundly reshaped the ways in which migrants access information, exercise their rights, and connect with available support services. In increasingly complex migration contexts, digital environments have evolved from simple information channels into strategic spaces that facilitate guidance, mediation, and access to social protection systems (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2024; United Nations, 2023). This transformation forms part of the broader development of digital governance, understood as the integration of information and communication technologies into public service delivery and social policy implementation (United Nations, 2023). The expansion of e-government, together with the proliferation of digital platforms developed by civil society organizations, has increased opportunities for remote access to services while reducing geographical and temporal barriers to information and administrative procedures. In the field of migration, digitalization responds not only to the need for greater administrative efficiency but also to the growing demand for accessible, up-to-date, and culturally responsive resources for populations characterized by considerable linguistic, social, and legal diversity (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2023). These developments have been described through concepts such as digital migration, digital migration governance, and digital welfare, all of which emphasize that digital technologies have become embedded within the everyday infrastructures of migration (Dekker et al., 2018; Leurs and Smets, 2018). Migrants routinely rely on institutional websites, social media, mobile applications, messaging platforms, and other digital resources to obtain information about administrative procedures, access health and social services, search for employment and housing, maintain transnational relationships, and establish new social networks in destination countries (IOM, 2024). Digitalization should therefore be understood not as an ancillary aspect of migration but as one of the structural conditions through which contemporary migration is experienced.

Within this context, digital intervention ecosystems have emerged as the digital environments through which public institutions and third-sector organizations organize information, coordinate support, facilitate access to services, and mediate interactions with migrant populations. Although public administrations generally prioritize procedural management, regulatory information, and access to public services, social organizations often extend these functions by incorporating rights advocacy, awareness-raising activities, community participation initiatives, and personalized support. Rather than representing mutually exclusive approaches, these differences reflect complementary intervention models that position technology along a continuum ranging from administrative information to more relational forms of guidance and community engagement (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2024). At the same time, digital transformation introduces new forms of inequality. Digital exclusion continues to disproportionately affect migrants with limited digital literacy, restricted financial resources, language barriers, or insecure administrative status (OECD, 2023). Limited access to digital devices or stable internet connections, together with the complexity of electronic administrative procedures, may reproduce existing inequalities in access to public services (United Nations, 2023). In Spain, this pattern is illustrated by persistent structural failures in the online appointment system (cita previa) for immigration procedures, which the national Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) has repeatedly identified as a source of prolonged waiting periods, administrative uncertainty, and heightened vulnerability for undocumented migrants (Defensor del Pueblo, 2016, 2026). Consequently, international organizations increasingly argue that digital transformation should be guided by principles of accessibility, usability, cultural responsiveness, and equity to ensure that digital resources effectively support migrant populations rather than creating additional barriers (IOM, 2024; WHO, 2022).

Beyond their technological functions, digital intervention ecosystems increasingly operate as mechanisms of social intervention within reception and inclusion processes. They centralize information, guide users through administrative procedures, facilitate access to rights and services, increase the visibility of specialized resources, promote community initiatives, and establish initial connections between migrants and the organizations responsible for their support. In doing so, they may reduce uncertainty, strengthen individual autonomy, and facilitate engagement with existing support systems. Despite growing interest in the digitalization of migration policies, research has focused predominantly on e-government, border management, mobile technologies, and migrants’ communication practices (Dekker et al., 2018; Leurs and Smets, 2018). Comparatively little attention has been devoted to understanding how institutional and community-based digital intervention ecosystems embody different models of intervention and the mechanisms through which they facilitate access to rights, guidance, support, and social inclusion. This gap is particularly relevant because many of these mechanisms operate on factors widely recognized as social determinants of mental health. Although digital intervention ecosystems are rarely designed as psychological interventions, they may contribute to psychosocial well-being by reducing barriers to access, supporting informed decision-making, strengthening autonomy, and facilitating social inclusion. Understanding these potential contributions requires moving beyond the technological characteristics of digital resources to examine the intervention models they represent. The following section therefore reviews the evidence on digital interventions and argues for a broader conceptualization of digital intervention ecosystems as resources capable of influencing psychosocial well-being through multiple social and institutional pathways.

Digital intervention ecosystems and psychosocial well-being: beyond online mental health care

The incorporation of digital technologies into the field of mental health has given rise to a wide range of interventions, including telepsychology, telepsychiatry, web-based treatment platforms, mobile applications, digital self-help programs, and remote assessment and monitoring systems. For migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, these technologies have been considered a potential means of reducing barriers to face-to-face care, such as geographical distance, shortages of culturally and linguistically competent professionals, travel costs, the stigma surrounding mental health problems, and limited knowledge of healthcare systems in destination countries (Hynie et al., 2023; Liem et al., 2021). Early reviews identified digital interventions across different stages of mental healthcare, including screening, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment, mainly through computer-based programs, websites, videoconferencing, and telemedicine tools. Although some studies reported positive user attitudes and improvements in symptoms of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress, they also highlighted methodological limitations and insufficient implementation of ethical standards related to privacy, security, confidentiality, and informed consent (Liem et al., 2021). Consequently, the availability of digital technology alone does not guarantee accessible, safe, or equitable care. Subsequent systematic reviews reached similar conclusions. El-Haj-Mohamad et al. (2023) identified a limited number of studies on smartphone-delivered mental health interventions for refugees, together with considerable heterogeneity in study designs, populations, intervention tools, and outcomes. Likewise, El-Refaay et al. (2024) concluded that evidence regarding technology-based interventions for reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress among migrants and refugees remains limited. Although the findings suggest potential benefits for depressive symptoms, they do not support firm conclusions regarding other clinical outcomes or allow these interventions to be generalized across diverse migrant populations.

This cautious interpretation is reinforced by the review conducted by Abtahi et al. (2023), which identified only nine studies specifically examining digital interventions targeting the mental health and well-being of international migrants, highlighting the emerging nature of this field. Similarly, Nascimento et al. (2023) identified thirteen studies examining digital methods aimed at promoting immigrant well-being. Importantly, they found that many of these technologies extended beyond psychological treatment, encompassing digital intervention ecosystems designed to improve adaptation, facilitate access to resources, strengthen social connections, and promote multiple dimensions of well-being. Together, these findings broaden the focus beyond a strictly clinical conception of digital mental health. While much of the literature has concentrated on technologies designed to detect or treat mental disorders, migrants also interact daily with digital intervention ecosystems that are not presented as therapeutic interventions but may nevertheless influence psychosocial well-being. These include institutional portals, social organization websites, guidance platforms, resource repositories, multilingual materials, digital referral channels, and community communication spaces.

From the perspective of the social determinants of health, the relevance of these digital intervention ecosystems lies not necessarily in their capacity to reduce psychological symptoms, but in their potential to facilitate access to information, rights, services, and support networks. The World Health Organization (2023) emphasizes that migrants’ mental health is shaped by interacting individual, family, community, and structural factors, including legal and material security, the satisfaction of basic needs, community support, discrimination, exposure to adverse experiences, and the ability to navigate healthcare and social service systems. Accordingly, digital intervention ecosystems may contribute to psychosocial well-being by reducing uncertainty, improving knowledge of available resources, and facilitating contact with social and community services, even when they do not provide direct psychological care. Likewise, the provision of clear, accessible, and reliable information is particularly important in migration contexts characterized by administrative complexity and fragmented services. Identifying eligibility requirements for social benefits, locating competent authorities, accessing legal assistance, or understanding regularization procedures may reduce uncertainty when interacting with public institutions. Nevertheless, these contributions should be understood as potential mechanisms rather than demonstrated clinical outcomes, since most of these resources have not been evaluated using mental health indicators.

A key concept for understanding this relationship is digital health literacy, defined as the ability to search for, understand, evaluate, and use health information from digital sources. It depends not only on individual skills but also on the accessibility, clarity, and cultural relevance of digital resources. Among forcibly displaced migrants, these competencies are often limited by language barriers, low literacy, restricted technological experience, economic hardship, and unstable internet access (Yameogo et al., 2025). Their review identified only six eligible studies, most reporting positive effects of educational, empowerment, social support, and technological strategies, while highlighting important limitations, including the small evidence base, methodological heterogeneity, limited follow-up, and the absence of studies from regions such as South America. These findings suggest that digital health literacy is a promising but still underdeveloped field of research among migrant populations. The same review emphasizes that effective interventions extend beyond technical training by incorporating peer support, community mediation, professional guidance, and cultural and linguistic adaptation. Accordingly, digital health literacy should be understood as a contextual process in which professionals, community organizations, and public institutions mediate migrants’ interaction with digital systems. This perspective is particularly relevant for digital intervention ecosystems managed by social organizations, whose value lies not only in providing information but also in connecting users with face-to-face services and community resources (Yameogo et al., 2025). Similarly, Hynie et al. (2023) argue that access to virtual mental healthcare depends on multiple dimensions, including availability, affordability, cultural appropriateness, trust, and users’ ability to navigate digital technologies. Consequently, formally available services may remain inaccessible to those who face linguistic, technological, or social barriers.

Cultural adaptation is equally essential. Ellis et al. (2022) found positive outcomes for culturally adapted digital mental health interventions among ethnic and racial minority groups but also noted that evidence remains limited and concentrated on specific populations. Beyond language translation, adaptation requires aligning content, communication styles, and support mechanisms with users’ social and cultural contexts. At the same time, digitalization may reinforce inequalities when internet access, digital literacy, privacy, or trust in institutions are lacking, or when digital procedures replace face-to-face support. Digital health should therefore be considered from an equity perspective that addresses not only the existence of digital resources but also the conditions enabling their effective use. These considerations highlight the need to distinguish between digital mental health interventions, designed to prevent, assess, or treat psychological problems, and digital social intervention ecosystems, whose primary functions are information, guidance, referral, rights promotion, and community support. Although the latter are not therapeutic interventions, they may influence psychosocial well-being by reducing uncertainty, facilitating access to resources, strengthening autonomy, expanding support networks, and fostering a sense of belonging.

Based on this distinction, the present study does not evaluate the clinical effectiveness of digital mental health tools. Instead, it analyses institutional and community-based digital intervention ecosystems serving migrant populations, focusing on the intervention models they reflect, the representations of migrants and their needs they convey, and the mechanisms through which they may contribute to psychosocial well-being. This approach conceptualizes digital environments not simply as technological platforms but as spaces where interactions between migrants, public institutions, social organizations, and welfare systems are configured.

From access to information to support: digital intervention models for migrant populations

The digitalization of migration extends beyond technologies used during migration journeys or digital mental health interventions. Digital environments increasingly shape migrants’ everyday interactions with public administrations, social protection systems, and third-sector organizations. Through websites, guidance platforms, social media, mobile applications, and messaging services, migrants search for information, navigate administrative procedures, locate resources, maintain transnational ties, and establish new relationships in destination societies (Dekker et al., 2018; Leurs and Smets, 2018). Connectivity has therefore become a constitutive dimension of the migration experience rather than simply a technological tool. Research on digital migration suggests that digital technologies can strengthen migrants’ capacity to access information and make decisions, while also reproducing existing inequalities. Dekker et al. (2018) found that asylum seekers combined information from personal networks, online communities, and institutional sources to guide migration decisions, although the information available was often incomplete, contradictory, or difficult to verify. Accordingly, the value of digital resources depends not only on their availability but also on the reliability of information, users’ competencies, and the institutional contexts in which information is applied. In the same vein, Leurs and Smets (2018) argue that digital migration should be understood beyond the dichotomy between technological optimism and surveillance, recognizing digital environments as digital intervention ecosystems in which technologies, institutions, infrastructures, social relationships, and patterns of use interact. Consequently, analysing these ecosystems requires examining not only their technical characteristics but also the forms of interaction, participation, and inclusion they promote. This perspective is particularly relevant when comparing digital resources developed by public administrations and third-sector organizations. Although both provide information and services, they often pursue different objectives. Institutional portals generally focus on administrative procedures, eligibility criteria, and access to public services, whereas social organizations are more likely to include educational resources, awareness campaigns, rights advocacy, community participation initiatives, volunteer networks, and support mechanisms. Rather than assuming these differences, they require empirical comparison of the functions, language, and interaction models represented in each digital intervention ecosystem.

The literature identifies several interrelated functions performed by these ecosystems. The first is information, understood as providing accessible content on rights, administrative procedures, available services, and community resources. In migration contexts characterized by institutional complexity, clear and updated information may facilitate navigation through administrative and healthcare systems, although its usefulness depends on accessibility, multilingual content, linguistic clarity, and links to effective support mechanisms. Language, culture, technology, and trust continue to shape migrants’ use of digital resources (Whitehead et al., 2023). Beyond information, digital intervention ecosystems may also fulfil guidance and support functions. Guidance helps users identify appropriate resources, understand procedures, and access services through directories, referral systems, interactive maps, or contact mechanisms, thereby reducing uncertainty and facilitating decision-making. Support, in turn, involves more sustained connections with professionals, community organizations, or local services through messaging systems, appointment requests, intercultural mediation, or referral pathways. Importantly, digital support does not necessarily replace face-to-face intervention but can function as an entry point that connects migrants with territorial resources. As highlighted by Yameogo et al. (2025), interventions that combine education, empowerment, social support, and technological measures are more comprehensive than those relying exclusively on digital information. Psychosocial support should also be understood broadly. While some ecosystems increase the visibility of psychological services or facilitate referrals to mental health professionals, others contribute indirectly to well-being by reducing uncertainty, improving access to resources, and strengthening social support. Current evidence indicates that digital interventions may fulfil functions ranging from clinical care to promoting adaptation, connectedness, and access to resources, although existing findings remain heterogeneous and do not justify attributing clinical effects to digital intervention ecosystems that have not been evaluated for this purpose (Abtahi et al., 2023; Nascimento et al., 2023).

Beyond guidance and support, digital intervention ecosystems may also foster community participation and the development of social capital. Digital platforms and social media enable migrants to exchange experiences, share practical knowledge, maintain transnational ties, and establish new social connections in destination societies. The netnographic study by te Lintelo et al. (2024) showed that Facebook groups used by Latin American migrants supported digital place-making through information exchange, identity negotiation, and the creation of social relationships. These findings suggest that the contribution of digital environments to psychosocial well-being derives not only from access to information but also from opportunities for participation, interaction, and belonging. At the same time, digital environments may strengthen social capital by connecting migrants with organizations, institutions, and community resources, although informational portals alone do not necessarily generate reciprocal or supportive relationships.

A rights-based perspective provides an additional lens for interpreting these ecosystems. Making rights understandable, explaining administrative procedures, and offering mechanisms to address discrimination may enhance migrants’ capacity to act. Conversely, ecosystems centred exclusively on administrative requirements and control mechanisms may reinforce passive or bureaucratic representations of migrants. Consequently, analysis should consider not only the information provided but also the position assigned to users, whether they are represented primarily as service recipients, rights holders, or active community participants. These functions are closely linked to accessibility and trust. Accessibility depends not only on internet access but also on understandable content, multilingual communication, user-centred design, compatibility with mobile devices, and alternative support mechanisms. Whitehead et al. (2023) identified seven broad factors shaping the use of digital health technologies among culturally and linguistically diverse populations, including technology use, design, language, culture, health-related factors, trustworthiness, and social interaction. Trust is particularly relevant in migration contexts, where concerns about confidentiality, administrative consequences, or data sharing may discourage the use of institutional digital services. Transparency regarding organizational responsibility, data management, and communication channels therefore becomes an essential component of high-quality digital intervention ecosystems.

Taken together, the literature suggests a continuum ranging from the one-way provision of information to more relational forms of guidance, support, participation, and empowerment. These functions should not be interpreted hierarchically, as different digital intervention ecosystems respond to different institutional missions. Nevertheless, distinguishing among them provides a useful framework for analysing how digital resources may contribute to psychosocial well-being. Building on this literature, the present study analyses digital intervention ecosystems through four analytical models that may coexist within the same platform: (1) an administrative-information model, focused on procedures and access routes; (2) an institutional guidance and service access model, aimed at connecting users with services and resources; (3) a rights-based community model, oriented towards participation, social capital, autonomy, and the exercise of rights; and (4) a community guidance, accompaniment, and referral model, characterised by personalised, relational connections with professionals and community networks. These models are proposed as sensitizing concepts rather than as a validated taxonomy, providing an analytical framework for interpreting the functions represented across different digital intervention ecosystems.

This approach addresses an important gap in the literature. While previous research has primarily examined migrants’ use of digital technologies, digital border management, barriers to digital healthcare, and the effectiveness of online mental health interventions, comparatively little attention has been paid to the comparative analysis of the digital intervention ecosystems through which public institutions and third-sector organizations provide information, guidance, support, and opportunities for participation. In particular, limited research has explored how these ecosystems connect digital resources with local community networks or the conceptions of reception, well-being, participation, and rights embedded in their design. Accordingly, this study conducts a comparative analysis of four institutional and community-based digital intervention ecosystems developed for migrant populations in Spain and Argentina. Rather than evaluating their clinical effectiveness, it examines how they organise information, guidance, psychosocial support, participation, empowerment, and connections with territorial resources, identifying the intervention models they represent and the mechanisms through which they may potentially contribute to migrants’ psychosocial well-being. The following section describes the methodological approach adopted to conduct this comparative analysis.

This study adopts a qualitative research design aimed at understanding the role and potential contribution of digital intervention ecosystems targeting migrant populations in contemporary migration contexts. Specifically, it examines how these digital resources address needs related to settlement processes, access to information and services, and responses to different forms of violence, while exploring the mechanisms through which they may contribute to migrants’ psychosocial well-being and mental health. To achieve this, the study combines digital ethnography with comparative thematic content analysis conducted in two national contexts, Spain and Argentina, to develop a comparative understanding of the characteristics, functions, and scope of these digital intervention ecosystems. Given the descriptive and comparative nature of digital ethnography, the case descriptions and findings are presented within this section rather than in a separate Results section, following a common convention in qualitative digital ethnography studies where methodological procedure and empirical description are closely intertwined.

The research is grounded in digital anthropology and digital ethnography, which conceptualize the Internet both as a cultural space where social practices and meanings are produced and as a cultural artefact whose technological properties are embedded within specific social contexts (Hine, 2000, 2015; Miller and Horst, 2012). Content analysis was also conducted, with particular attention to the themes addressed and the objectives of the different digital resources. Digital ethnography provides an appropriate methodological framework for examining digitally mediated social practices by enabling the analysis of interactions, information flows, guidance practices, support processes, and forms of participation across online environments (Murthy, 2008; Pink et al., 2016; Postill and Pink, 2012). This approach is particularly well suited to investigating how migrants engage with digital intervention ecosystems in their everyday lives, allowing the reconstruction of the ways in which they seek information, request assistance, share experiences, and build formal and informal support networks while navigating settlement processes in the destination country.

The coding process combined elements of directed and conventional content analysis. Rather than applying a fully predefined codebook, an exploratory reading of the corpus was first conducted to identify the most relevant recurring themes; these themes were then organised around four shared analytical categories, communication and access model, information and guidance content, contribution to rights and psychosocial well-being, and limitations, which were applied consistently across the four cases to enable systematic comparison. Coding was conducted separately for each national context: the Spanish corpus (the Humanitarian Assistance Programme and Red Acoge) was coded by the first author, and the Argentine corpus (BA Migrante and UTEP) was coded by the third author. The coding of both corpora was subsequently reviewed by the second author to identify and resolve discrepancies. Digital ethnography and content analysis were conducted between March and May 2026.

Argentine corpus

For the Argentine case, several digital intervention ecosystems aimed at providing information, guidance, and support to migrants residing in the country were identified and examined. The mapping revealed a heterogeneous landscape composed of both institutional and civil society initiatives that use digital technologies to facilitate access to information, rights, public services, and community resources.

Within the public sector, three institutional resources were identified. The first was the BA Migrante Virtual Assistant, developed by the Government of the City of Buenos Aires (2021), which provides information on residence procedures, the National Identity Document (DNI), healthcare, employment, education, and discrimination complaints. The service operates 24 h a day through WhatsApp, where users activate the assistant by sending the keyword Migrante. A similar digital resource was developed by the National Directorate for Migration (Dirección Nacional de Migraciones, n.d.), also providing information and administrative guidance through a WhatsApp virtual assistant. Additionally, the Centro de Atención a Personas Migrantes (CAPeM) (CAPeM, n.d.) platform, developed by the City of Córdoba, was included in the mapping. This web-based resource offers guidance on migration regularization procedures, access to public services, available social programmes, and referral to specialised support services.

Within civil society, several initiatives promoted by migrant organizations were identified. Unlike institutional virtual assistants, these initiatives rely primarily on direct human interaction, using WhatsApp and other digital communication channels to provide guidance, accompaniment, and referral. Among the most prominent are the Bloque de Trabajadores Migrantes (BTM) (Bloque de Trabajadorxs Migrantes, n.d.) and the Unión de Trabajadores de la Economía Popular (UTEP) (Unión de Trabajadores de la Economía Popular [UTEP], n.d.), whose volunteer teams complement online support with face-to-face community activities. The mapping also identified Psicoven, an association of Venezuelan psychologists based in Argentina that provides psychosocial support through both digital and in-person mental health services. The in-depth analysis focused on two contrasting digital intervention models representing the two principal forms of service provision identified in Argentina. BA Migrante was selected as the institutional digital ecosystem because it constitutes the most comprehensive governmental platform integrating administrative information, digital guidance, and referral to public services. UTEP was selected as the community-based ecosystem because it illustrates how civil society organizations use digital communication to provide personalised accompaniment, facilitate access to rights, and connect migrants with community and institutional resources. This analytical strategy allows a direct comparison between institutional and community-based digital intervention models in both Spain and Argentina.

The analysis was conducted through digital ethnography, based on systematic observation of the selected digital ecosystems. Particular attention was paid to their organisational structure, available contents, accessibility, interaction mechanisms, guidance strategies, communication channels, referral systems, and forms of user participation. The analysis also examined the types of needs addressed by each ecosystem and the ways in which digital resources were articulated with territorial services and offline support networks. This approach made it possible to explore how different digital intervention models configure distinct relationships with migrant populations and how they may contribute, through different mechanisms, to improving access to rights, services, and psychosocial support. This study also builds upon previous research conducted by the authors on the role of digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic in two municipalities of the Buenos Aires metropolitan area (Melella and Perret, 2026). These studies demonstrated that mobile phones and WhatsApp became essential tools for maintaining communication, facilitating access to health and education services, and supporting care practices, including the follow-up of gender-based violence situations. At the same time, they highlighted two relevant limitations: migrant populations were not explicitly recognised as target groups within the analysed public policies, and digital technologies displayed an ambivalent character, simultaneously functioning as mechanisms of care and surveillance. These findings provide an important contextual framework for interpreting the digital intervention ecosystems analysed in the present study and for understanding how different digital configurations may contribute, albeit with varying scopes and limitations, to the psychosocial well-being of migrant populations.

BA Migrante: an institutional digital intervention ecosystem

Communication and access model

The BA Migrante Virtual Assistant constitutes one of the main digital intervention ecosystems developed by the Argentine public administration to support migrant populations. Created by the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, the service aims to facilitate access to administrative information and guide migrants towards the public resources and services available in the city. Unlike conventional institutional websites, BA Migrante centralises information within a single communication channel, using WhatsApp as the primary entry point and providing users with continuous access to information 24 h a day. The ecosystem is activated by sending the keyword “Migrante” to the official WhatsApp number provided by the Government of the City of Buenos Aires. Once activated, the virtual assistant presents users with a structured menu that organises information into thematic categories, allowing navigation through automated responses without requiring prior knowledge of the administrative structure of public services. This conversational interface simplifies information retrieval by guiding users through predefined decision pathways according to their specific needs.

Information, guidance and content

The information provided addresses many of the most common challenges encountered during migrants’ settlement and integration processes. Available topics include residence procedures, the National Identity Document (DNI), access to healthcare, employment opportunities, educational services, Spanish language learning, social programmes, and mechanisms for reporting discrimination. Beyond offering basic guidance, the assistant also redirects users to official websites and specialised public services, facilitating the continuation of administrative procedures through direct links and referral mechanisms. From an organisational perspective, BA Migrante follows the logic of a structured conversational chatbot based on hierarchical decision trees. User interaction is guided through predefined response pathways that progressively narrow the available options until the requested information is reached. This architecture reduces the complexity traditionally associated with navigating governmental websites and contributes to a more intuitive user experience, particularly for individuals accessing services through mobile phones, which remain the primary means of Internet access for many migrant populations.

Contribution to rights and psychosocial well-being

Accessibility constitutes one of the ecosystem's main strengths. The decision to operate through WhatsApp significantly lowers technological barriers, as the application is already widely used throughout Latin America and does not require users to download additional software or acquire advanced digital skills. Furthermore, the permanent availability of the service enables users to obtain administrative information independently of office opening hours, increasing flexibility and facilitating immediate access to basic guidance.

Limitations of the digital ecosystem

However, the analysis also reveals limitations inherent to automated digital intervention models. Because interactions are restricted to predefined conversational pathways, the system has limited capacity to respond to complex, personalised, or unforeseen situations. The absence of direct human interaction reduces its ability to provide contextualised guidance, emotional support, or tailored problem-solving for migrants facing multiple or interconnected vulnerabilities. Consequently, BA Migrante functions primarily as an ecosystem for information provision, orientation, and referral, rather than as a platform for sustained accompaniment or personalised intervention.

Overall, BA Migrante represents an institutional model of digital intervention designed to improve migrants’ access to public information through widely adopted communication technologies. Its principal contribution lies in centralising administrative information, simplifying access to public services, and ensuring continuous availability. At the same time, its reliance on automated interactions highlights the limitations of digital systems based exclusively on programmed responses, underscoring the continuing importance of human-mediated support when migrants’ needs extend beyond informational or administrative guidance.

UTEP: a community-based digital intervention ecosystem

Communication and access model

The Unión de Trabajadores de la Economía Popular (UTEP) represents a community-based model of digital intervention developed by civil society to support migrant populations in Argentina. Unlike institutional digital ecosystems based on automated information delivery, UTEP combines digital communication with personalised accompaniment, using WhatsApp as the principal gateway through which migrants establish direct contact with members of the organisation. Rather than replacing face-to-face intervention, digital communication functions as an extension of community work, facilitating continuous support before, during, and after in-person interactions.

Information, guidance and content

Access to the ecosystem occurs through direct communication with volunteers and community representatives, without the mediation of automated chatbots or predefined decision trees. This model enables migrants to formulate their questions freely and receive responses adapted to their specific circumstances. Consequently, the interaction is characterised by flexibility, reciprocity, and dialogue, allowing support to be tailored to the complexity of each individual situation. The digital support provided by UTEP covers a broad range of issues associated with the everyday experiences of migrants. Users seek guidance on migration regularisation procedures, access to documentation, employment opportunities, housing, healthcare, education, and social benefits. In many cases, requests extend beyond administrative information, involving situations of social vulnerability that require personalised guidance, mediation with public institutions, or referral to specialised community organisations. Digital communication therefore serves not only as an information channel but also as a mechanism for identifying needs, coordinating assistance, and accompanying migrants throughout different stages of their integration process. From an organisational perspective, UTEP operates through a decentralised and relational digital ecosystem. WhatsApp functions as the principal communication tool because of its accessibility and widespread use, but its role extends beyond simple message exchange. It enables the continuity of community relationships, facilitates rapid responses to emerging situations, coordinates appointments and documentation processes, and strengthens trust between migrants and community workers. Digital communication is therefore embedded within broader networks of territorial intervention rather than operating as an isolated technological solution.

Contribution to rights and psychosocial well-being

UTEP's digital ecosystem primarily provides support with migration-related procedures, many of which are initiated through WhatsApp, while also addressing a broad range of other migration-related issues. This digital channel is complemented by an in-person service at the UTEP headquarters in Constitución, which operates every Thursday, where people can seek advice and make inquiries directly. One of the main strengths of this ecosystem lies in its capacity to combine digital accessibility with human accompaniment. Unlike automated systems, UTEP's intervention is characterised by contextualised responses that take into account the social, legal, and personal circumstances of each migrant. This flexibility enables volunteers to adapt guidance to individual needs, identify vulnerabilities that may not be immediately apparent, and facilitate access to institutional and community resources through personalised referral processes. The digital ecosystem also addresses situations related to gender-based violence and mental health. In these cases, users are referred to a counselling and emotional support service operating within UTEP, which is not exclusively intended for migrants.

Limitations of the digital ecosystem

At the same time, this model also presents important limitations. Because support depends on the availability of volunteers and community organisations, the continuity and scalability of services are constrained by human and organisational resources. Response times may vary according to demand, and the sustainability of the ecosystem relies heavily on community engagement rather than stable institutional infrastructures. Consequently, while UTEP provides a more personalised and relational form of digital intervention than institutional platforms, its capacity to respond to increasing demand remains dependent on the resources available within civil society. Overall, UTEP represents a community-based digital intervention ecosystem in which digital technologies function as instruments for accompaniment, mediation, and the construction of social support networks. Rather than prioritising the automation of information, the ecosystem places interpersonal relationships at the centre of intervention, demonstrating how digital communication can strengthen community responses to migrants’ everyday needs while complementing institutional service provision.

Spanish corpus

The Spanish digital intervention ecosystem for migrant populations is composed of a combination of institutional resources and services developed by third-sector organisations. While public administrations organise access to the reception system, protection mechanisms and rights guarantees through information and guidance platforms, civil society organisations complement these interventions by providing social accompaniment, legal and social counselling, psychological support and community inclusion initiatives. Prior to selecting the case studies, an exploratory mapping of the main digital resources available for migrants in Spain was conducted. At the institutional level, this mapping identified the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration and the Humanitarian Assistance Programme. Within the third sector, major nationwide organisations included Red Acoge, CEAR, ACCEM, the Spanish Red Cross, Fundación Cepaim, Andalucía Acoge and Cáritas, all of which provide digital platforms offering information, guidance and access to resources for migrants. Within this context, digital resources function as gateways to a broader network of face-to-face services, facilitating access to information, referrals and contact with different support services. Following the same methodological strategy adopted for the Argentine corpus, two representative case studies were selected: the Humanitarian Assistance Programme website of the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration (n.d.), representing the institutional model, and the Red Acoge (Red Acoge, n.d.) digital ecosystem, representing community-based intervention developed by civil society organisations. This selection enables a comparison of two complementary forms of digital mediation aimed at facilitating access to resources and promoting the psychosocial well-being of migrant populations.

The Humanitarian Assistance Programme website: institutional information and access to the reception system

The Humanitarian Assistance Programme website has a predominantly descriptive structure. Its primary digital function is to explain who is eligible for the programme, which services are included, which situations of vulnerability are considered and which organisations are responsible for delivering the different interventions. The platform does not provide personalised support, self-assessment tools or a dedicated online psychological support service within the website itself. Its contribution therefore lies in providing institutional information and making visible a network of services that are subsequently delivered through face-to-face resources and partner organisations. The programme targets migrants in situations of vulnerability arriving in Spain by sea or through the land borders of Ceuta and Melilla. Vulnerability is defined in relation to physical or psychological deterioration, together with the absence of social, family and economic support. This definition reflects a multidimensional understanding of migrant needs by recognising that distress is shaped not only by health-related factors but also by the material and relational conditions surrounding arrival. The information presented describes the programme as a comprehensive humanitarian response. Reception services include accommodation and food, basic healthcare, social, civic, health and legal guidance, information about other public and private resources, psychological support, language training and literacy programmes. The programme also includes the restoration of family and social contacts, the assessment of personal circumstances, the identification of vulnerabilities and referral to specialised services whenever specific needs are detected. Likewise, the Temporary Stay Centres for Immigrants provide healthcare, psychological and legal assistance, together with translation and interpreting services.

From a mental health perspective, the website's principal contribution lies in presenting psychological support as one component of a broader package of services rather than as an isolated intervention. Psychological care is integrated into a wider framework encompassing material security, protection, information, social accompaniment and the restoration of social ties. This approach is consistent with a psychosocial understanding of migrant well-being, whereby the fulfilment of basic needs, understanding how the reception system operates, access to rights and the availability of social support may reduce some of the stressors associated with arrival. However, the digital content analysed provides no evidence regarding the magnitude of these potential effects. The website also identifies groups considered to be particularly vulnerable, including people with disabilities, pregnant women, individuals with serious illnesses, people with mental health conditions, victims of human trafficking and individuals who have experienced torture or severe forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence. This classification facilitates the identification of situations requiring specialised intervention. Nevertheless, the platform primarily adopts an institutional logic focused on categorising vulnerabilities and defining eligibility criteria, rather than providing an accessible explanation of how individuals can directly request support or what they should expect during the psychological support process.

Communication and access model

The website features a hierarchical navigation structure and provides the Ministry's general interface in Spanish, Catalan, Basque, Galician, English and French. It also includes general sections on accessibility, privacy and user support. This multilingual availability potentially broadens access, particularly through English and French, although it does not cover several of the languages spoken by important groups of recently arrived migrants and does not, in itself, guarantee comprehension of complex administrative information. The language used throughout the website is formal and institutional, employing terms such as beneficiaries, vulnerability criteria, services and referrals. Information is organised through headings and lists that enable users to identify the available services relatively quickly. However, the administrative complexity of the content and the absence of easy-to-read materials, tailored audiovisual explanations or guided navigation pathways may hinder its use by individuals with limited language proficiency, low digital literacy or little prior knowledge of the Spanish reception system.

Communication is predominantly unidirectional. Users can consult the available information, but the specific programme webpage does not incorporate a live chat, virtual assistant, dedicated contact form, WhatsApp service or any immediate mechanism through which users can describe their individual situation. Although the Ministry's main website provides links to general contact and citizen support services, the resource analysed does not directly transform digital consultation into interaction with professionals. Consequently, its capacity to provide immediate emotional support is limited: it informs users that psychological care is available within the programme but does not deliver psychological support through the digital interface itself.

This distinction illustrates the difference between the existence of a public policy and its digital implementation. While the programme itself encompasses psychological, social and healthcare services, the website primarily functions as an institutional information portal. Effective intervention depends on access to reception services and on the work carried out by accredited partner organisations. Consequently, the usefulness of the digital platform depends largely on users’ ability to recognise that they may be eligible, understand the referral pathway and establish contact with the reception system through other channels.

Potential contribution to well-being

The website's potential contribution to psychological well-being is primarily indirect. Access to reliable information may reduce disorientation, correct unrealistic expectations and foster an initial sense of predictability. Likewise, awareness of the availability of accommodation, healthcare, social support and psychological services may generate an expectation of institutional protection. This function may be particularly relevant during the initial stages of arrival, which are frequently characterised by uncertainty, lack of social support and unfamiliarity with the host context. Particularly noteworthy is the inclusion of measures aimed at restoring family and social contacts. Rather than adopting an exclusively administrative approach to reception, the programme recognises social relationships as a basic need. Facilitating contact with family members may contribute to reducing isolation and rebuilding support networks, both of which are closely associated with emotional well-being during migration processes.

Limitations of the digital ecosystem

Nevertheless, the digital resource also presents important limitations. The website does not provide psychoeducational content addressing migration-related stress, grief, anxiety, trauma, discrimination or coping strategies. Nor does it include personal testimonies, peer-support activities or community spaces that might foster identification with others experiencing similar circumstances. Well-being therefore appears as an implicit outcome of access to services and the fulfilment of basic needs, rather than as an explicit focus of communication. Overall, the Humanitarian Assistance Programme website can be characterised as an administrative and informational model with guidance and referral functions. Its principal strength lies in making visible a comprehensive reception system that explicitly incorporates mental healthcare. Its main limitation is the gap between information provision and effective interaction: while the website informs users about the available support system, it does not itself constitute a digital space for accompaniment or psychosocial support.

Red Acoge: the digital environment as a tool for accompaniment, empowerment and social inclusion

The second case analysed is the digital ecosystem of Red Acoge, a federation of social organisations specialising in supporting migrants and refugees in Spain through a human rights, diversity and intercultural approach. Unlike the institutional resource analysed above, Red Acoge's digital platform extends beyond providing information about available services, constituting instead a comprehensive intervention environment that integrates direct support, training, awareness-raising, knowledge production and social advocacy. The organisation defines its mission as defending the rights of migrants through processes of accompaniment, social transformation and alliance-building. It currently operates across twenty territories, employs more than 650 professionals, works with over 1,100 volunteers and reports having supported more than 47,000 people during the last reporting period, demonstrating a strong territorial and community presence.

From a psychosocial perspective, the distinctive feature of this digital ecosystem is that mental health is not presented solely as the outcome of clinical or therapeutic interventions, but rather as a consequence of the effective exercise of rights, the reduction of discrimination, the strengthening of social networks and the promotion of personal autonomy. Accordingly, the digital environment reflects an ecological understanding of well-being, in which legal, social, community and cultural conditions are inseparable dimensions of migrants’ mental health.

A communication model based on accompaniment

The analysis reveals a communication model that differs substantially from that observed in the Humanitarian Assistance Programme. Whereas the institutional resource organises information according to an administrative logic, Red Acoge structures its digital environment around three interconnected pillars: accompaniment, social transformation and alliances. This organisation not only informs users about available services but also conveys a particular understanding of social intervention centred on supportive relationships, community participation and the active defence of rights. The concept of accompaniment constitutes the core organising principle of the platform. Throughout the website, accompaniment is understood as an ongoing process of guidance, information and support that facilitates social inclusion and access to resources while avoiding the reduction of migrants to passive recipients of assistance. This approach represents a significant departure from traditional assistance-based models by positioning the professional-user relationship within a gradual process of empowerment and capacity building. From a digital perspective, the website functions as an initial point of reception where migrants can identify available resources, understand their rights, learn about intervention experiences and locate member organisations operating throughout Spain. Although personalised support continues to be delivered primarily through face-to-face services, the digital environment serves as an initial mechanism for reducing uncertainty and facilitating access to an extensive support network.

Information, rights and psychosocial well-being

One of the most distinctive features of the platform is the breadth of its documentary repository. The Resources and Materials section contains guides, protocols, reports, manuals, educational resources and technical documents intended for professionals, migrants, volunteers and the wider public. This extensive documentation transforms the platform into a space for knowledge transfer and legal and social literacy. Available resources include practical guides on migrant employment, social integration procedures, family reunification, cultural diversity, equal treatment, diversity management, reception protocols, community intervention methodologies and materials promoting legal empowerment. Particularly noteworthy are recent publications addressing the accompaniment of migrants with disabilities, community-based intervention methodologies, safe reporting mechanisms and tools for incorporating a rights-based approach into professional practice. From a mental health perspective, these resources can be understood as mechanisms for reducing the stress associated with administrative uncertainty. Access to understandable information about procedures, rights and available services may help reduce the sense of helplessness and lack of control frequently experienced during migration processes. Although the platform does not provide direct psychological intervention, it offers resources that strengthen users’ autonomy and capacity to navigate complex institutional environments.

The documentary analysis shows that most of the materials produced by Red Acoge explicitly link social inclusion to the effective recognition and exercise of rights. This perspective is reflected in reports on discrimination and inclusion, advocacy documents, public awareness campaigns and policy recommendations addressed to public administrations. Particularly noteworthy is the organisation's sustained production of reports on discrimination, diversity and inclusion indicators, and analyses of media representations of migration. This systematic generation of knowledge extends beyond the direct provision of services, positioning the digital platform as a tool for social transformation. From a psychosocial perspective, this orientation is particularly relevant because discrimination, social exclusion and stigmatising narratives are widely recognised determinants of migrants’ mental health and well-being. The platform also provides specific materials on equal treatment, cultural diversity and gender-sensitive approaches to accompaniment, together with resources designed to strengthen culturally competent interventions among professionals and civil society organisations. Consequently, the emphasis is not only on responding to the consequences of vulnerability but also on addressing the structural conditions that generate it.

Community participation and empowerment

Another distinguishing characteristic of the platform is the importance attributed to the construction of community networks. The organisation consistently highlights volunteering initiatives, partnerships between organisations, collective campaigns and participatory projects, presenting social support as one of the principal mechanisms for promoting inclusion. From a mental health perspective, this orientation is especially significant. Previous research has consistently identified the loss of social networks, social isolation and the disruption of interpersonal relationships as major risk factors throughout the migration process. In response, Red Acoge's digital ecosystem projects an image of belonging to a broad support community in which professionals, volunteers, organisations and citizens collaborate to facilitate the reception and inclusion of migrants. Although the platform does not host permanent online peer-support communities, it facilitates access to an extensive territorial network and to numerous community-based initiatives. In this respect, the digital environment functions as an entry point to social relationships that are subsequently strengthened through face-to-face activities and ongoing community participation.

One of the central themes emerging from the analysis is the concept of legal empowerment, which is consistently present across a wide range of guides and training materials. Rather than limiting its intervention to the provision of legal advice, the platform seeks to strengthen migrants’ capacity to understand, exercise and defend their rights independently. This approach is reflected in documents addressed not only to migrants themselves but also to volunteers, professionals and third-sector organisations. Autonomy therefore constitutes a cross-cutting objective of the digital ecosystem. The available materials promote understanding of administrative procedures, access to rights, social participation and the reduction of institutional barriers. From a mental health promotion perspective, this orientation is particularly relevant, as perceived control and the ability to make informed decisions about one's own life have consistently been associated with higher levels of psychological well-being, resilience and successful adaptation following migration.

Limitations of the digital ecosystem

Despite the richness of its documentary resources, several limitations can also be identified. First, the platform does not provide immediate psychological assistance, synchronous consultation services or online peer-support spaces. Most interventions continue to be delivered through face-to-face services provided by member organisations operating across the country. Furthermore, the considerable volume of documentation available may make it difficult for users with limited digital literacy or low proficiency in Spanish to locate relevant information efficiently. Although the platform offers a wide variety of high-quality resources, these are simultaneously directed at multiple audiences, including professionals, social organisations, volunteers, public administrations and migrants, which may reduce the clarity of navigation pathways for some users.

Overall, Red Acoge represents a community-based digital intervention model grounded in accompaniment, empowerment and the defence of rights. Unlike the Humanitarian Assistance Programme website, whose primary function is to provide information about access to the institutional reception system, Red Acoge uses the digital environment to generate knowledge, strengthen individual and collective capacities, promote participation and foster supportive social networks. From the perspective of psychosocial well-being, its principal contribution does not lie in delivering online psychological care, but rather in addressing several of the social determinants of mental health, including the reduction of administrative uncertainty, the promotion of personal autonomy, the fight against discrimination, the encouragement of community participation and the strengthening of social support networks. Consequently, Red Acoge's digital ecosystem can be interpreted as a digital health promotion resource whose intervention focuses primarily on the social and structural factors shaping migrants’ mental health, thereby complementing the institutional model represented by the Humanitarian Assistance Programme.

Digital ecosystems as infrastructures for access to psychosocial well-being

The findings of this study (Table 1) demonstrate that digital initiatives targeting migrant populations perform a function that extends beyond the provision of information or the digitalization of services. Across the four cases analyzed, digital technologies constitute genuine digital ecosystems of intervention that facilitate access to resources, rights, and support networks through the interaction of digital platforms, public institutions, social organizations, and community-based resources. From this perspective, the digital dimension is not an end in itself but an integral component of social intervention processes, creating pathways to support that are subsequently developed through face-to-face services, specialized professionals, and territorial resources.

Previous research on migration and digital technologies has largely focused on how migrants use the Internet and social media to obtain information, maintain transnational ties, build social networks, and manage their migration trajectories (Dekker et al., 2018; Leurs and Smets, 2018). Comparatively less attention has been paid to the role of public institutions and civil society organizations in developing digital environments that facilitate social inclusion and access to social protection systems. The present findings extend this body of research by showing that institutional and community-based digital ecosystems function as mechanisms of mediation between migrant populations and available resources, playing an active role in reception, guidance, participation, and the effective exercise of rights.

The comparative analysis further reveals that, despite organizational differences between Spain and Argentina, all four cases pursue a common objective: reducing the barriers that hinder migrants’ access to social, administrative, and community resources. However, this objective is pursued through distinct intervention strategies. The Humanitarian Assistance Programme represents an institutional model designed to facilitate entry into the reception system through information and administrative guidance; BA Migrante focuses on simplifying access to public services and municipal procedures; Red Acoge has developed a digital ecosystem grounded in a rights-based approach that promotes social participation and community strengthening; and UTEP prioritizes personalized guidance and referral through direct communication channels. These differences illustrate that the digitalization of social intervention does not follow a single model but rather adopts diverse configurations shaped by each organization's mission, institutional structure, and intervention priorities.

Despite these differences, all four digital ecosystems operate by addressing factors widely recognized as social determinants of psychosocial well-being. Access to reliable information, the reduction of uncertainty surrounding administrative procedures, referral to specialized resources, the strengthening of support networks, and the promotion of the effective exercise of rights represent mechanisms through which these initiatives may indirectly enhance migrants’ well-being. This interpretation is consistent with the World Health Organization's framework (WHO, 2023), which emphasizes that migrant mental health is closely linked to structural factors such as social inclusion, institutional protection, access to rights, and community participation.

The findings also challenge approaches that conceptualize digital health exclusively from technological or clinical perspectives. None of the initiatives analyzed confines its intervention to the virtual environment or attempts to replace face-to-face support with digital tools. Instead, websites, social media platforms, and messaging services function as entry points that facilitate initial contact with organizations and subsequently connect users to guidance, counselling, accompaniment, mediation, or referral processes delivered by professionals and community actors. Consequently, the potential effectiveness of these digital ecosystems depends less on the technological sophistication of their platforms than on their capacity to integrate with institutional and community networks capable of transforming digital contact into effective access to resources and rights. This interpretation is consistent with recent perspectives that conceptualize digital health as hybrid ecosystems in which technologies are embedded within organizational, professional, and community processes (Hynie et al., 2023; Whitehead et al., 2023).

Taken together, these findings support a conceptualization of digital initiatives for migrant populations as social intervention ecosystems designed to address the social determinants of psychosocial well-being. This perspective expands the literature on digital health in migration contexts, which has traditionally focused on clinical interventions or migrants’ individual use of digital technologies, by highlighting the potential of digital ecosystems to foster social inclusion, facilitate access to rights, and strengthen the connections between migrant populations and social protection systems. Accordingly, the primary value of these ecosystems lies not merely in the incorporation of digital technologies but in their capacity to reinforce the social conditions that underpin migrants’ well-being and inclusion.

Four models of digital intervention for migrant populations

The comparative analysis of the four cases identified four predominant models of digital intervention targeting migrant populations. Although each initiative operates within a specific institutional and organizational context, the findings show that they represent distinct ways of using digital technologies to facilitate access to resources, services, and rights. These models should not be understood as fixed or mutually exclusive categories but rather as ideal types that synthesize the predominant function performed by each digital ecosystem. Consequently, elements of more than one model may coexist within the same organization.

The first model is the administrative-information model, represented by the Humanitarian Assistance Programme in Spain. In this case, the digital ecosystem functions as the gateway to the institutional reception system by providing structured information about the programme, available resources, eligibility criteria, and the services offered. The digital platform facilitates initial contact between migrants and public institutions, reducing uncertainty during the reception process and supporting subsequent access to specialized resources. Its primary function is not to deliver direct assistance but to organize and channel access to the institutional protection system.

The second model is the institutional guidance and service access model, represented by BA Migrante. Unlike the previous model, its primary objective is to facilitate migrants’ everyday interactions with public administration by centralizing information, administrative procedures, and municipal services. The digital ecosystem simplifies bureaucratic processes, provides guidance on available resources, and improves access to public services, acting as an intermediary between migrant residents and the local administrative system. This model reflects the growing role of e-government as a mechanism for promoting inclusion and reducing bureaucratic barriers.

The third model is the rights-based community model, represented by Red Acoge. Here, the digital ecosystem extends beyond the provision of information to become a space for public awareness, policy advocacy, civic participation, and community empowerment. Digital platforms not only disseminate information about resources and activities but also promote a human rights-based narrative, raise awareness of discrimination, generate knowledge about migration, and strengthen support networks among organizations and communities. Digital intervention therefore becomes oriented toward collective empowerment and social transformation, incorporating a community dimension that distinguishes this model from institutionally driven approaches.

Finally, the fourth model is the community guidance, accompaniment, and referral model, represented by the Unión de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras de la Economía Popular (UTEP). In this case, digital technologies are primarily used to establish direct and accessible communication channels with migrant populations, particularly through instant messaging applications such as WhatsApp. The main objective is to provide personalized guidance, respond to specific enquiries, and facilitate referrals to social, healthcare, or legal services whenever required. Compared with more administratively structured models, this approach prioritizes proximity, flexibility, and responsiveness, adapting its intervention to the specific needs of service users.

The comparison of these four models demonstrates that the digitalization of social intervention adopts different configurations according to the nature of the organizations involved, their objectives, and the roles they perform within social protection systems. While public institutions primarily orient their digital ecosystems toward facilitating access to services and administrative procedures, third-sector organizations develop strategies that place greater emphasis on accompaniment, community participation, and the promotion and protection of rights. Rather than representing opposing approaches, these models perform complementary functions that expand the capacity of social protection systems to respond to the multiple needs of migrant populations.

This typology highlights that digital ecosystems for migrant populations do not constitute a single model of intervention but rather a diverse set of strategies that perform different functions throughout the migration process. The identification of these four models provides a useful analytical framework for future comparative research and offers a conceptual basis for examining how digital technologies can be integrated into both public policies and community-based interventions aimed at promoting migrants’ social inclusion and psychosocial well-being.

Hybrid intervention: integrating digital ecosystems with territorial resources

One of the main findings of this study is that all four cases share a fundamental characteristic: none of them conceives digital intervention as a substitute for face-to-face support. Instead, digital ecosystems are embedded within hybrid intervention models, in which digital technologies expand access to resources, facilitate communication, and enhance the continuity of accompaniment processes while remaining closely integrated with professionals, organizations, specialized services, and community networks.

This finding is consistent with recent perspectives on digital health and digital intervention that challenge technocentric approaches and advocate understanding technologies as components of complex systems of care, where the value of digital tools depends on their integration with existing organizational and community resources (Hynie et al., 2023; Whitehead et al., 2023). From this perspective, the effectiveness of digital ecosystems lies not simply in the availability of technological platforms but in their capacity to create pathways of care that connect virtual environments with face-to-face services and sustained intervention processes.

The findings further show that this integration takes different forms depending on the nature of each organization. Within public-sector initiatives, the digital dimension primarily functions as a gateway to the institutional system, enabling migrants to identify available resources, initiate administrative procedures, or locate specialized services before engaging in face-to-face contact. In contrast, third-sector organizations make more relational use of digital technologies, employing them to maintain ongoing communication with service users, disseminate relevant information, mobilize communities, and facilitate referrals to resources tailored to individual needs.

Despite these differences, both approaches share the same underlying logic: technology serves as the entry point to intervention processes that necessarily extend beyond the digital environment. Initial contact established through a website, social media platform, or messaging service is subsequently followed by legal advice, social support, intercultural mediation, community activities, or referrals to specialized services. In this way, digital ecosystems expand access to resources without replacing the human dimension that characterizes social intervention.

This complementarity is particularly relevant in migration contexts, where individuals often face multiple administrative, linguistic, economic, and geographical barriers that limit access to social protection systems. Digital environments help reduce some of these barriers by providing up-to-date information, enabling more agile communication, and maintaining continuous contact with organizations. However, the findings also indicate that their effectiveness ultimately depends on the availability of institutional and community resources capable of responding to identified needs and transforming digital interactions into effective access to rights and services.

These findings suggest that innovation in social intervention with migrant populations should not be understood merely as the incorporation of new technologies but rather as the ability to integrate digital resources within broader organizational strategies of reception, guidance, accompaniment, and community participation. From this perspective, technology acts as an enabling resource that strengthens coordination among stakeholders, improves service accessibility, and extends the reach of interventions without displacing the central role of professional and community relationships in promoting social inclusion.

Digital channels as mechanisms for accessibility, trust, and participation

The findings indicate that the effectiveness of digital ecosystems depends not only on the platforms employed but also on the functions they perform within each organization's intervention strategy. Institutional websites, social media platforms, and instant messaging services constitute complementary communication channels that facilitate different levels of interaction with migrant populations, ranging from access to information and public services to personalized communication and community participation. Consequently, the value of these resources lies not simply in their capacity to disseminate information but in their potential to reduce barriers to access and strengthen the relationship between migrant populations and the organizations that support them.

Institutional websites constitute the primary gateway to structured information and public resources. Both the Humanitarian Assistance Programme and BA Migrante organize their digital ecosystems around web portals that centralize information on administrative procedures, eligibility requirements, and available services. These platforms enhance accessibility by providing updated, well-organized, and permanently available information, thereby reducing the uncertainty associated with migration processes and facilitating initial contact with social protection systems. At the same time, they improve institutional efficiency by enabling users to resolve many initial queries independently before requiring face-to-face assistance.

By contrast, third-sector organizations make more dynamic and relational use of digital communication channels. In the case of Red Acoge, social media platforms form part of a communication strategy designed not only to disseminate information about services and activities but also to raise public awareness, increase the visibility of situations of vulnerability, promote advocacy campaigns, and strengthen a sense of belonging within communities committed to defending migrants’ rights. Digital spaces therefore acquire a participatory dimension that extends beyond the transmission of information, fostering interaction, civic engagement, and community mobilization.

In the case of UTEP, the use of instant messaging applications such as WhatsApp represents a different form of digital communication characterized by immediacy, accessibility, and personalization. This communication channel facilitates the resolution of specific enquiries, supports continuous interaction with service users, and enables timely referrals to social, healthcare, or legal resources whenever necessary. The accessibility of these tools is particularly important for groups that may experience difficulties navigating more complex administrative procedures or require rapid responses in situations of vulnerability.

These findings are consistent with previous research highlighting trust as one of the key factors determining migrants’ effective use of digital resources (Leurs and Smets, 2018; WHO, 2023). Technological accessibility alone does not guarantee service utilization if users do not perceive organizations as trustworthy sources of information that provide responses tailored to their needs through accessible communication channels. Across the four cases analyzed, trust emerges as a function of both the quality of the information provided and the organizations’ ability to sustain ongoing relationships with users through multiple digital channels.

The study also demonstrates that these communication channels do not operate in isolation but rather function as complementary components of a single digital ecosystem. Websites provide structured information; social media platforms facilitate dissemination, interaction, and public awareness; and messaging services enable personalized communication and direct guidance. Together, these channels enhance the accessibility of interventions and allow organizations to respond more flexibly to the evolving needs of migrant populations.

These findings suggest that designing effective digital ecosystems for migrant populations requires not only the adoption of digital technologies but also the careful selection of communication channels that best align with each organization's functions and the characteristics of its target population. Rather than technological sophistication itself, the findings indicate that accessibility, trust, and the capacity to sustain meaningful relationships with users are the key elements that enable digital ecosystems to function as effective instruments of social intervention and the promotion of psychosocial well-being.

Implications for social intervention and future research

The findings of this study have important implications for the design of public policies and intervention strategies targeting migrant populations. First, they demonstrate that the development of digital ecosystems should not be limited to the digitalization of administrative procedures or the incorporation of new technological tools. Instead, it requires strategic planning aimed at strengthening accessibility, interinstitutional coordination, and the responsiveness of social protection systems. Technology alone is not a mechanism for social inclusion; rather, its effectiveness depends on its integration with face-to-face services, qualified professionals, and community networks capable of responding to the needs of migrant populations.

The proposed typology also highlights the complementary roles played by public institutions and third-sector organizations within digital intervention ecosystems. While public institutions facilitate access to administrative procedures, benefits, and public services through structured digital platforms, social organizations provide proximity, accompaniment, community participation, and rights-based support that are essential for responding to situations of heightened vulnerability. This complementarity points to the value of collaborative governance models in which both sectors share information, coordinate resources, and develop interoperable digital strategies that facilitate more integrated pathways of support.

From a public health perspective, the findings reinforce the importance of incorporating the social determinants of psychosocial well-being into the design and evaluation of digital interventions for migrant populations. Access to reliable information, the reduction of administrative barriers, guidance toward specialized services, and the strengthening of community support networks are not psychological interventions in themselves, yet they can make a substantial contribution to improving the social conditions that underpin well-being and inclusion. These barriers are far from hypothetical: national oversight bodies such as the Spanish Defensor del Pueblo have documented how dysfunctional digital appointment systems can leave migrants without access to essential administrative and reception procedures for extended periods, disproportionately affecting those in the most precarious legal situations (Defensor del Pueblo, 2026). Consequently, the evaluation of these digital ecosystems should extend beyond technological indicators, such as the number of users or platform reach, to include outcomes related to effective access to rights, service utilization, community participation, and perceived social support.

This study also has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the analysis focused on four case studies from two countries; therefore, the proposed models are not intended to provide an exhaustive classification of digital ecosystems targeting migrant populations. Other initiatives may adopt different intervention strategies that would further expand the proposed typology. Second, the study is based on the analysis of publicly available digital resources and information provided by the organizations themselves. It does not incorporate the experiences of migrant users or assess the impact of these initiatives on psychosocial well-being or social inclusion outcomes. Future research incorporating participatory methodologies, interviews, or user experience studies would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the real-world impact of these digital ecosystems.

Future studies should also broaden the analysis to include additional national contexts and different types of organizations, enabling comparative research on the factors associated with more effective digital intervention ecosystems. Likewise, there is a need for research designs capable of evaluating how these initiatives influence access to rights, social inclusion, service utilization, and psychosocial well-being among migrant populations. Such evidence would contribute to building a stronger empirical foundation for the development of more inclusive digital policies tailored to the diverse social, cultural, and administrative realities that characterize contemporary migration.

This study offers a comparative perspective on digital ecosystems for migrant populations through the lens of social intervention and psychosocial well-being. The identification of four distinct models of digital intervention demonstrates that digital technologies can perform diverse functions throughout processes of reception, guidance, participation, and access to rights, provided they are embedded within broader institutional and community networks. Rather than replacing face-to-face intervention, the digital ecosystems analyzed extend the reach of social support, improve access to resources, and strengthen organizational capacity to respond to the needs of migrant populations, positioning them as strategic components of more accessible, coordinated, and inclusive social protection systems.

This study comparatively examined four digital initiatives for migrant populations developed by public institutions and social organizations in Spain and Argentina to explore their potential contribution to psychosocial well-being from a social determinants of health perspective. The findings show that these initiatives extend beyond the provision of information, functioning instead as digital ecosystems that facilitate access to resources, rights, services, and support networks through the integration of digital tools with institutional and community-based resources. The comparative analysis identified four predominant models of digital intervention: the administrative-information model, the institutional guidance and service access model, the rights-based community model, and the community guidance, accompaniment, and referral model. Together, these models provide an analytical framework for understanding the diversity of digital strategies developed by public administrations and third-sector organizations, highlighting the complementary roles they play within social protection systems.

The findings further demonstrate that the contribution of these digital ecosystems to psychosocial well-being does not depend on the direct provision of psychological care. Rather, their value lies in addressing key social determinants of health by facilitating access to reliable information, reducing administrative barriers, connecting migrants with specialized services, strengthening support networks, and promoting the effective exercise of rights. At the same time, the study confirms that the effectiveness of these initiatives stems from their hybrid nature, combining digital resources with face-to-face processes of guidance, accompaniment, and community intervention. From a practical perspective, these findings underscore the importance of developing digital ecosystems that are accessible, culturally and linguistically responsive, and fully integrated within institutional and community networks that support the social inclusion of migrant populations. Future research should incorporate the experiences of migrant users, extend comparative analyses to additional national contexts, and develop indicators capable of assessing the contribution of these ecosystems to access to rights, service utilization, and psychosocial well-being.

Beyond the specific findings presented here, this study also points to a broader and urgent need for sustained academic and policy attention to the structural dysfunctions that continue to affect migrants’ access to essential administrative and reception procedures in both digital and face-to-face settings. Addressing these dysfunctions requires not only well-designed digital resources but also institutional accountability and adequate administrative capacity. Future research should continue to document these structural barriers and their psychosocial consequences, contributing to more comprehensive evidence base capable of informing more effective and rights-respecting migration policies.

This study contributes to the field of digital health and migration by conceptualizing digital initiatives as social intervention ecosystems rather than merely technological tools. From this perspective, their primary value lies in their capacity to connect migrant populations with resources, rights, and support networks that foster social inclusion and promote psychosocial well-being.