Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28838302›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2017

Integrating mHealth at point of care in low- and middle-income settings: the system perspective.

Lee Wallis, Paul Blessing, Mohammed Dalwai, Sang Do Shin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 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

4 authors.

Lee Wallisa Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Stellenbosch University , Bellville , South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2711-3139
Paul Blessingc College of Medicine , University of Illinois at Chicago , Chicago , IL , USA.
Mohammed Dalwaib Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Cape Town , Cape Town , South Africa.
Sang Do Shind Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services , Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute , Seoul , South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the field represents a wide spectrum of products and services, many aspects of mHealth have great promise within resource-poor settings: there is an extensive range of cheap, widely available tools which can be used at the point of care delivery. However, there are a number of conditions which need to be met if such solutions are to be adequately integrated into existing health systems; we consider these from regulatory, technological and user perspectives. We explore the need for an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework, to avoid 'work around' solutions, which threaten patient confidentiality (such as the extensive use of instant messaging services to deliver sensitive clinical information and seek diagnostic and management advice). In addition, we will look at other confidentiality issues such as the need for applications to remove identifiable information (such as photos) from users' devices. Integration is dependent upon multiple technological factors, and we illustrate these using examples such as products made available specifically for adoption in low- and middle-income countries. Issues such as usability of the application, signal loss, data volume utilization, need to enter passwords, and the availability of automated or in-app context-relevant clinical advice will be discussed. From a user perspective, there are three groups to consider: experts, front-line clinicians, and patients. Each will accept, to different degrees, the use of technology in care - often with cultural or regional variation - and this is central to integration and uptake. For clinicians, ease of integration into daily work flow is critical, as are familiarity and acceptability of other technology in the workplace. Front-line staff tend to work in areas with more challenges around cell phone signal coverage and data availability than 'back-end' experts, and the effect of this is discussed.

Indexed as

InternetDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHealth Services AccessibilityHomeodomain ProteinsHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsPovertyRural Health ServicesTelemedicineDbx1 protein, mouseHomeodomain Proteinsbarrierslow- and middle-income countriesMHealthmHealth for Improved Access and Equity in Health Carescaletechnologyusability

Identifiers

PMID28838302
PMCPMC5645717

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.