Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24555733›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2014

Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa.

Clara B Aranda-Jan, Neo Mohutsiwa-Dibe, Svetla Loukanova

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 321 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
321citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
97.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03688217 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

The Philani Mobile Video Intervention for Exclusive Breastfeeding (MOVIE) Study: a Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial of a Mobile Video Entertainment-education Intervention to Promote Exclusive Breastfeeding in South Africa

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharles G. ProberRan2018 to 2020Enrolled1,504ConditionsExclusive Breastfeeding, Infant Feeding PracticesArmsPhilani Intervention Model+MOVIE (PIM+M), Philani Intervention Model (PIM)
NCT04074083 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

A Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of e-IMCI Implementation Compared to Standard of Care for Sick Children Aged Under Five Years in Primary Health Care Clinics in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of KwaZuluRan2021 to 2022Enrolled291ConditionsChild Health, Clinical Practice Guidelines, Primary Health CareArmselectronic IMCI, paper IMCI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

321 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 669 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

261 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Clara B Aranda-Jan
Neo Mohutsiwa-Dibe
Svetla LoukanovaInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Svetla.Loukanova@urz.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to mobile phone technology has rapidly expanded in developing countries. In Africa, mHealth is a relatively new concept and questions arise regarding reliability of the technology used for health outcomes. This review documents strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of mHealth projects in Africa.

methodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on mHealth projects in Africa, between 2003 and 2013, was carried out using PubMed and OvidSP. Data was synthesized using a SWOT analysis methodology. Results were grouped to assess specific aspects of project implementation in terms of sustainability and mid/long-term results, integration to the health system, management process, scale-up and replication, and legal issues, regulations and standards.

resultsForty-four studies on mHealth projects in Africa were included and classified as: "patient follow-up and medication adherence" (n = 19), "staff training, support and motivation" (n = 2), "staff evaluation, monitoring and guidelines compliance" (n = 4), "drug supply-chain and stock management" (n = 2), "patient education and awareness" (n = 1), "disease surveillance and intervention monitoring" (n = 4), "data collection/transfer and reporting" (n = 10) and "overview of mHealth projects" (n = 2). In general, mHealth projects demonstrate positive health-related outcomes and their success is based on the accessibility, acceptance and low-cost of the technology, effective adaptation to local contexts, strong stakeholder collaboration, and government involvement. Threats such as dependency on funding, unclear healthcare system responsibilities, unreliable infrastructure and lack of evidence on cost-effectiveness challenge their implementation. mHealth projects can potentially be scaled-up to help tackle problems faced by healthcare systems like poor management of drug stocks, weak surveillance and reporting systems or lack of resources.

conclusionsmHealth in Africa is an innovative approach to delivering health services. In this fast-growing technological field, research opportunities include assessing implications of scaling-up mHealth projects, evaluating cost-effectiveness and impacts on the overall health system.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneMedical InformaticsAfricaCommunity Health ServicesDeveloping CountriesHumansReproducibility of ResultsTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID24555733
PMCPMC3942265
OpenAlexW2016378685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.