Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29101138›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Do digital innovations for HIV and sexually transmitted infections work? Results from a systematic review (1996-2017).

Jana Daher, Rohit Vijh, Blake Linthwaite, Sailly Dave, John Kim, Keertan Dheda, Trevor Peter, Nitika Pant Pai

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Strengthening Delivery of Health Services Using Digital Devices.Global health, science and practice · 2018
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 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

8 authors.

Jana DaherDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Rohit VijhDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Blake LinthwaiteDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Sailly DaveDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
John KimNational HIV/AIDS Labs, National Labs, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Keertan DhedaDepartment of Pulmonology, UCT Lung Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Trevor PeterClinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), Boston, USA.
Nitika Pant PaiDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDigital innovations with internet/mobile phones offer a potential cost-saving solution for overburdened health systems with high service delivery costs to improve efficiency of HIV/STI (sexually transmitted infections) control initiatives. However, their overall evidence has not yet been appraised. We evaluated the feasibility and impact of all digital innovations for all HIV/STIs.

designSystematic review. SETTING/

participantsAll settings/all participants.

interventionWe classified digital innovations into (1) mobile health-based (mHealth: SMS (short message service)/phone calls), (2) internet-based mobile and/or electronic health (mHealth/eHealth: social media, avatar-guided computer programs, websites, mobile applications, streamed soap opera videos) and (3) combined innovations (included both SMS/phone calls and internet-based mHealth/eHealth). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility, acceptability, impact.

methodsWe searched databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science, abstracted data, explored heterogeneity, performed a random effects subgroup analysis.

resultsWe reviewed 99 studies, 63 (64%) were from America/Europe, 36 (36%) from Africa/Asia; 79% (79/99) were clinical trials; 84% (83/99) evaluated impact. Of innovations, mHealth based: 70% (69/99); internet based: 21% (21/99); combined: 9% (9/99).All digital innovations were highly accepted (26/31; 84%), and feasible (20/31; 65%). Regarding impacted measures, mHealth-based innovations (SMS) significantly improved antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence (pooled OR=2.15(95%CI: 1.18 to 3.91)) and clinic attendance rates (pooled OR=1.76(95%CI: 1.28, 2.42)); internet-based innovations improved clinic attendance (6/6), ART adherence (4/4), self-care (1/1), while reducing risk (5/5); combined innovations increased clinic attendance, ART adherence, partner notifications and self-care. Confounding (68%) and selection bias (66%) were observed in observational studies and attrition bias in 31% of clinical trials.

conclusionDigital innovations were acceptable, feasible and generated impact. A trend towards the use of internet-based and combined (internet and mobile) innovations was noted. Large scale-up studies of high quality, with new integrated impact metrics, and cost-effectiveness are needed. Findings will appeal to all stakeholders in the HIV/STI global initiatives space.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneText MessagingAntiretroviral Therapy, Highly ActiveHIV InfectionsHumansMedication AdherenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf CareSexually Transmitted DiseasesTelemedicinehivinnovationsmhealth/ehealthsexually transmitted infectionssystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID29101138
PMCPMC5695353

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.