Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25487047›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2014

SMARTHealth India: Development and Field Evaluation of a Mobile Clinical Decision Support System for Cardiovascular Diseases in Rural India.

Devarsetty Praveen, Anushka Patel, Arvind Raghu, Gari D Clifford, Pallab K Maulik, Ameer Mohammad Abdul, Kishor Mogulluru, Lionel Tarassenko, Stephen MacMahon, David Peiris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.5field-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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

George Institute for Global Health · INUniversity of Oxford · GBThe George Institute for Global Health · AUEmory University · USGeorge Institute for Global Health · GB

Funding

DBT-Wellcome Trust India Alliance IA/I/13/1/500879Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of premature death and disability in India and yet few people at risk of CVD are able to access best practice health care. Mobile health (mHealth) is a promising solution, but very few mHealth interventions have been subjected to robust evaluation in India.

objectiveThe objectives were to develop a multifaceted, mobile clinical decision support system (CDSS) for CVD management and evaluate it for use by public nonphysician health care workers (NPHWs) and physicians in a rural Indian setting.

methodsPlain language clinical rules were developed based on standard guidelines and programmed into a computer tablet app. The algorithm was validated and field-tested in 11 villages in Andhra Pradesh, involving 11 NPHWs and 3 primary health center (PHC) physicians. A mixed method evaluation was conducted comprising clinical and survey data and in-depth patient and staff interviews to understand barriers and enablers to the use of the system. Then this was thematically analyzed using NVivo 10.

resultsDuring validation of the algorithm, there was an initial agreement for 70% of the 42 calculated variables between the CDSS and SPSS software outputs. Discrepancies were identified and amendments were made until perfect agreement was achieved. During field testing, NPHWs and PHC physicians used the CDSS to screen 227 and 65 adults, respectively. The NPHWs identified 39% (88/227) of patients for referral with 78% (69/88) of these having a definite indication for blood pressure (BP)-lowering medication. However, only 35% (24/69) attended a clinic within 1 month of referral, with 42% (10/24) of these reporting continuing medications at 3-month follow-up. Physicians identified and recommended 17% (11/65) of patients for BP-lowering medications. Qualitative interviews identified 3 interrelated interview themes: (1) the CDSS had potential to change prevailing health care models, (2) task-shifting to NPHWs was the central driver of change, and (3) despite high acceptability by end users, actual transformation was substantially limited by system-level barriers such as patient access to doctors and medicines.

conclusionsA tablet-based CDSS implemented within primary health care systems has the potential to help improve CVD outcomes in India. However, system-level barriers to accessing medical care limit its full impact. These barriers need to be actively addressed for clinical innovations to be successful.

trial registrationClinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2013/06/003753; http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=6259&EncHid=51761.70513&userName=CTRI/2013/06/003753 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6UBDlrEuq).

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseaseclinical decision support systemscommunity health workerdeveloping countriesmobile healthprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID25487047
PMCPMC4275493
OpenAlexW1994227544

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.