Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26824747›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Sustainable Cost Models for mHealth at Scale: Modeling Program Data from m4RH Tanzania.

Emily R Mangone, Smisha Agarwal, Kelly L'Engle, Christine Lasway, Trinity Zan, Hajo van Beijma, Jennifer Orkis, Robert Karam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Appraising eHealth Investment for Africa: Scoping Review and Development of a Framework.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. EHealth Investment Appraisal in Africa: A Scoping Review.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

8 authors.

Emily R MangoneFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Smisha AgarwalFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Kelly L'EngleFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Christine LaswayFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Trinity ZanFHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Hajo van BeijmaText to Change, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jennifer OrkisJohns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Robert KaramJohns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing evidence that mobile phone health interventions ("mHealth") can improve health behaviors and outcomes and are critically important in low-resource, low-access settings. However, the majority of mHealth programs in developing countries fail to reach scale. One reason may be the challenge of developing financially sustainable programs. The goal of this paper is to explore strategies for mHealth program sustainability and develop cost-recovery models for program implementers using 2014 operational program data from Mobile for Reproductive Health (m4RH), a national text-message (SMS) based health communication service in Tanzania.

methodsWe delineated 2014 m4RH program costs and considered three strategies for cost-recovery for the m4RH program: user pay-for-service, SMS cost reduction, and strategic partnerships. These inputs were used to develop four different cost-recovery scenarios. The four scenarios leveraged strategic partnerships to reduce per-SMS program costs and create per-SMS program revenue and varied the structure for user financial contribution. Finally, we conducted break-even and uncertainty analyses to evaluate the costs and revenues of these models at the 2014 user volume (125,320) and at any possible break-even volume.

resultsIn three of four scenarios, costs exceeded revenue by $94,596, $34,443, and $84,571 at the 2014 user volume. However, these costs represented large reductions (54%, 83%, and 58%, respectively) from the 2014 program cost of $203,475. Scenario four, in which the lowest per-SMS rate ($0.01 per SMS) was negotiated and users paid for all m4RH SMS sent or received, achieved a $5,660 profit at the 2014 user volume. A Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis demonstrated that break-even points were driven by user volume rather than variations in program costs.

conclusionsThese results reveal that breaking even was only probable when all SMS costs were transferred to users and the lowest per-SMS cost was negotiated with telecom partners. While this strategy was sustainable for the implementer, a central concern is that health information may not reach those who are too poor to pay, limiting the program's reach and impact. Incorporating strategies presented here may make mHealth programs more appealing to funders and investors but need further consideration to balance sustainability, scale, and impact.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAdultCondomsContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansMaleMonte Carlo MethodTanzaniaTelemedicineText MessagingContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID26824747
PMCPMC4733101

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.