Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25133610›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Mobile phones: the next step towards healthcare delivery in rural India?

Sherwin I DeSouza, M R Rashmi, Agalya P Vasanthi, Suchitha Maria Joseph, Rashmi Rodrigues

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
21.8field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sherwin I DeSouzaSt. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India.
M R RashmiSt. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India; Department of Community Medicine, Saveetha Medical College, Thandalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Agalya P VasanthiSt. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India.
Suchitha Maria JosephSt. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India.
Rashmi RodriguesSt. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore, India.
St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences · INSaveetha University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the ubiquity of mobile phones, their use to support healthcare in the Indian context is inevitable. It is however necessary to assess end-user perceptions regarding mobile health interventions especially in the rural Indian context prior to its use in healthcare. This would contextualize the use of mobile phone communication for health to 70% of the country's population that resides in rural India.

objectivesTo explore the acceptability of delivering healthcare interventions through mobile phones among users in a village in rural Bangalore.

methodsThis was an exploratory study of 488 mobile phone users, residing in a village, near Bangalore city, Karnataka, South India. A pretested, translated, interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to obtain data on mobile phone usage patterns and acceptability of the mobile phone, as a tool for health-related communication. The data is described using basic statistical measures.

resultsThe primary use of mobile phones was to make or receive phone calls (100%). Text messaging (SMS) was used by only 70 (14%) of the respondents. Most of the respondents, 484 (99%), were willing to receive health-related information on their mobile phones and did not consider receiving such information, an intrusion into their personal life. While receiving reminders for drug adherence was acceptable to most 479 (98%) of our respondents, 424 (89%) preferred voice calls alone to other forms of communication. Nearly all were willing to use their mobile phones to communicate with health personnel in emergencies and 367 (75%) were willing to consult a doctor via the phone in an acute illness. Factors such as sex, English literacy, employment status, and presence of chronic disease affected preferences regarding mode and content of communication.

conclusionThe mobile phone, as a tool for receiving health information and supporting healthcare through mHealth interventions was acceptable in the rural Indian context.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAdultCell PhoneFemaleHumansIndiaMalePhysicians, Primary CareReminder SystemsRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesText MessagingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25133610
PMCPMC4136858
OpenAlexW1986676162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.