Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30061430›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Scoping review assessing the evidence used to support the adoption of mobile health (mHealth) technologies for the education and training of community health workers (CHWs) in low-income and middle-income countries.

Niall Winters, Laurenz Langer, Anne Geniets

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07004608 (The Effectiveness Of A Community-based Video-facilitated Parenting Intervention For Child Development Integrated Into Routine Maternal And Child Care Services In India), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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.

NCT07004608 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Effectiveness Of A Community-based Video-facilitated Parenting Intervention For Child Development Integrated Into Routine Maternal And Child Care Services In India: Study Protocol

TypeobservationalSponsorSangathRan2023 to 2024Enrolled1,824ConditionsChild Development, Child Nutrition and Early Child DevelopmentArmsAalana Palana
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Healthcare Workers' Perspectives of mHealth Adoption Factors in the Developing World: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Niall WintersDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8597-2914
Laurenz LangerUniversity of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Anne GenietsDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUndertake a systematic scoping review to determine how a research evidence base, in the form of existing systematic reviews in the field of mobile health (mHealth), constitutes education and training for community health workers (CHWs) who use mobile technologies in everyday work. The review was informed by the following research questions: does educational theory inform the design of the education and training component of mHealth interventions? How is education and training with mobile technology by CHWs in low-income and middle-income countries categorised by existing systematic reviews? What is the basis for this categorisation?

settingThe review explored the literature from 2000 to 2017 to investigate how mHealth interventions have been positioned within the available evidence base in relation to their use of formal theories of learning.

resultsThe scoping review found 24 primary studies that were categorised by 16 systematic reviews as supporting CHWs' education and training using mobile technologies. However, when formal theories of learning from educational research were used to recategorise these 24 primary studies, only four could be coded as such. This identifies a problem with how CHWs' education and training using mobile technologies is understood and categorised within the existing evidence base. This is because there is no agreed on, theoretically informed understanding of what counts as learning.

conclusionThe claims made by mHealth researchers and practitioners regarding the learning benefits of mobile technology are not based on research results that are underpinned by formal theories of learning. mHealth suffers from a reductionist view of learning that underestimates the complexities of the relationship between pedagogy and technology. This has resulted in miscategorisations of what constitutes CHWs' education and training within the existing evidence base. This can be overcome by informed collaboration between the health and education communities.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesBiomedical TechnologyCommunity Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersHumansTelemedicinecommunity health workereducation and trainingglobal healthmHealthscoping review

Identifiers

PMID30061430
PMCPMC6067337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.