ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
The Cedar Project - Mobile Phone Use and Acceptability of Mobile Health Among Young Indigenous People Who Have Used Drugs in British Columbia, Canada: Mixed Methods Exploratory Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanding our understanding of digital mental health interventions for Indigenous youth: An updated systematic review.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2025Pooled it
- Implementation Science for HIV Prevention and Treatment in Indigenous Communities: a Systematic Review and Commentary.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2024Pooled it
- Influencing Factors to mHealth Uptake With Indigenous Populations: Qualitative Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of a Pilot mHealth Intervention to Engage Primary Care Clients at an Urban Clinic Serving Marginalized Populations: Mixed-Methods Cohort Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Scoping review of telehealth use by Indigenous populations from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Immigrant, Refugee, and Indigenous Canadians' Experiences With Virtual Health Care Services: Rapid Review.JMIR human factors · 2023Review
- Association of drug overdoses and user characteristics of Canada's national mobile/virtual overdose response hotline: the National Overdose Response Service (NORS).BMC public health · 2023Observational
- Experiences of psychiatrists and support staff providing telemental health services to Indigenous peoples of Northern Quebec.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndigenous leaders continue to be concerned about high rates of HIV and barriers to HIV treatment among young Indigenous people involved in substance use. Growing evidence suggests that using mobile phones for health (mHealth) may be a powerful way to support connection with health services, including HIV prevention and treatment.
objectiveThis study examined the patterns of mobile phone ownership and use among young Indigenous people who have used drugs living with or vulnerable to HIV and explored the acceptability of mHealth to support access to health care in this population.
methodsThe Cedar Project is a cohort study involving young Indigenous people who have used drugs in Vancouver and Prince George, British Columbia. This mixed methods exploratory study involved 131 Cedar Project participants enrolled in our WelTel mHealth program. At enrollment, participants completed a questionnaire related to mobile phone use and interest in mHealth. Data were linked to Cedar Project questionnaires and serodata. We present comparative statistics (quantitative) and results of a rapid thematic analysis (qualitative) related to mobile phone patterns and interest in receiving mHealth.
resultsLess than half of the participants (59/130; 45.4%) reported owning a phone. Among those with a phone, the majority owned a smartphone (46/59; 78%). Most participants with a phone reported having an unlimited texting plan (39/55; 71%), using the internet on their phone (44/59; 75%), and texting daily (44/55; 80%). A majority reported that using a mobile phone for health would be invaluable (120/130; 92.3%). There were no differences in mHealth acceptance between participants who owned a phone and those who did not (P>.99). All but one participant living with HIV felt using a mobile phone would be helpful for their health, while a small proportion of HIV-negative participants remained unsure (1.9% vs 11.7%; P=.047). In response to open-ended questions asking why using a mobile phone may be helpful for health, participants identified a diverse set of anticipated benefits: (1) connection for emotional, mental, and spiritual support, (2) connection to family, (3) staying in touch and/or being reachable, (4) overcoming current barriers to phone use, (5) convenience, privacy, and safety, and (6) access to health care and emergency services.
conclusionsWe observed high acceptance and interest in using mobile phone technology for health despite low rates of personal mobile phone connectivity among young Indigenous people who have used drugs living with and vulnerable to HIV in British Columbia, Canada. Mobile phones were viewed as a way to support connections and relationships that are seen as critical to health and well-being among young Indigenous people in this study. Findings may be useful for health care providers preparing to scale up mHealth programs to support HIV prevention and treatment in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.