Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29208026›Full record

Trial reportGlobalization and health2017

Operationalizing mHealth to improve patient care: a qualitative implementation science evaluation of the WelTel texting intervention in Canada and Kenya.

Kevin Louis Bardosh, Melanie Murray, Antony M Khaemba, Kirsten Smillie, Richard Lester

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Globalization and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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.

Kevin Louis BardoshDepartment of Anthropology & Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, 2055 Mowry Road, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. bardosh_kevin@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2973-5708
Melanie MurrayDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of British Columbia, E600B - 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Antony M KhaembaWelTel International mHealth Society, PO Box 50197 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Kirsten SmillieDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of British Columbia, E600B - 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Richard LesterDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of British Columbia, E600B - 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) applications have proliferated across the globe with much enthusiasm, although few have reached scale and shown public health impact. In this study, we explored how different contextual factors influenced the implementation, effectiveness and potential for scale-up of WelTel, an easy-to-use and evidence-based mHealth intervention. WelTel uses two-way SMS communication to improve patient adherence to medication and engagement in care, and has been developed and tested in Canada and Kenya.

methodsWe used a comparative qualitative case study design, which drew on 32 key informant interviews, conducted in 2016, with stakeholders involved in six WelTel projects. Our research was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a meta-theoretical framework, and our analysis relied on a modified approach to grounded theory, which allowed us to compare findings across these projects.

resultsWe found that WelTel had positive influences on the "culture of care" at local clinics and hospitals in Canada and Kenya, many of which stretched beyond the immediate patient-client relationship to influence wider organizational systems. However, these were mediated by clinician norms and practices, the availability of local champion staff, the receptivity and capacity of local management, and the particular characteristics of the technology platform, including the ability for adaptation and co-design. We also found that scale-up was influenced by different forms of data and evidence, which played important roles in legitimization and partnership building. Even with robust research evidence, scale-up was viewed as a precarious and uncertain process, embedded within the wider politics and financing of Canadian and Kenyan health systems. Challenges included juggling different interests, determining appropriate financing pathways, maintaining network growth, and "packaging" the intervention for impact and relevance.

conclusionsOur comparative case study, of a unique transnational mobile health research network, revealed that moving from mHealth pilots to scale is a difficult, context-specific process that couples social and technological innovation. Fostering new organizational partnerships and ways of learning are paramount, as mHealth platforms straddle the world of research, industry and public health. Partnerships need to avoid the perils of the technological fix, and engage the structural barriers that mediate people's health and access to services.

Indexed as

CanadaFemaleHumansKenyaPatient CompliancePregnancyProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchTelemedicineText MessagingANCCanadaHIVKenyaMaternal and child healthmHealthMobile healthSmsTbWelTel

Identifiers

PMID29208026
PMCPMC5717811

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.