Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31839886›Full record

ArticleMalawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi2019

Sustainability of 'mHealth' interventions in sub- Saharan Africa: a stakeholder analysis of an electronic community case management project in Malawi.

Kanika I Dharmayat, Tammy Tran, Victoria Hardy, Baxter Griphin Chirambo, Matthew J Thompson, Nicole Ide, Sven Carlsson, Bo Andersson, John Martin O'Donoghue, Nikolaos Mastellos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

10 authors.

Kanika I DharmayatGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Tammy TranGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Victoria HardyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Baxter Griphin ChiramboFaculty of Health Sciences, Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi.
Matthew J ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nicole IdeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sven CarlssonDepartment of Informatics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Bo AnderssonDepartment of Informatics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
John Martin O'DonoghueGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nikolaos MastellosGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The global health community and funding agencies are currently engaged in ensuring that worthwhile research-based programmes are sustainable. Despite its importance, few studies have analysed the sustainability of global health interventions. In this paper, we aim to explore barriers and facilitators for the wider implementation and sustainability of a mobile health (mHealth) intervention (Supporting LIFE Community Case Management programme) in Malawi, Africa. Methods: Between January and March 2017, a qualitative approach was used to carry out and analyse 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders across all levels of healthcare provision in Malawi to explore their perceptions with regards to the implementation and sustainability of the mHealth programme. Data were analysed thematically by two reviewers. Results: Overall, our analysis found that the programme was successful in achieving its goals. However, there are many challenges to the wider implementation and sustainability of this programme, including the absence of monetary resources, limited visibility outside the healthcare sector, the lack of integration with community-based and nationwide programmes, services and information and communication technologies, and the limited local capacity in relation to the maintenance, further development, and management. Conclusions: Future developments should be aligned with the strategic goals and interests of the Ministry of Health and engage with national and international stakeholders to develop shared goals and strategies for nationwide scale-up. These developments should also focus on building local capacity by educating trainers and ensuring that training methods and guidelines are appropriately accredited based on national policies. Our findings provide a framework for a variety of stakeholders who are engaged in sustaining mHealth programmes in resource-poor settings and can be used to develop an evidence-based policy for the utilization of technology for healthcare delivery across developing countries.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationCase ManagementCommunity ParticipationDelivery of Health CareHumansInterviews as TopicMalawiQualitative ResearchTelemedicinechild healthcommunity case managementMalawimHealthpolicy impactsustainability

Identifiers

PMID31839886
PMCPMC6895377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.