Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33437836›Full record

ArticlemHealth2020

Can mHealth and eHealth improve management of diabetes and hypertension in a hard-to-reach population? -lessons learned from a process evaluation of digital health to support a peer educator model in Cambodia using the RE-AIM framework.

Lesley Steinman, Maurits van Pelt, Heang Hen, Chhea Chhorvann, Channe Suy Lan, Vannarath Te, James LoGerfo, Annette L Fitzpatrick

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lesley SteinmanDepartment of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Maurits van PeltMoPoTsyo Patient Information Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Heang HenMoPoTsyo Patient Information Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Chhea ChhorvannNational Institute of Public Health, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Channe Suy LanInSTEDD, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Vannarath TeNational Institute of Public Health, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
James LoGerfoDepartment of Global Health, Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Annette L FitzpatrickDepartment of Global Health, Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
University of Washington · USDocumentation Center of Cambodia · KHNational Institute of Public Health · KH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where NCDs cause 4:5 deaths, disproportionately affect poorer populations, and carry a large economic burden. Digital interventions can improve NCD management for these hard-to-reach populations with inadequate health systems and high cell-phone coverage; however, there is limited research on whether digital health is reaching this potential. We conducted a process evaluation to understand challenges and successes from a digital health intervention trial to support Cambodians living with NCDs in a peer educator (PE) program.

methodsMoPoTsyo, a Cambodian non-governmental organization (NGO), trains people living with diabetes and/or hypertension as PEs to provide self-management education, support, and healthcare linkages for better care management among underserved populations. We partnered with MoPoTsyo and InSTEDD in 2016-2018 to test tailored and targeted mHealth mobile voice messages and eHealth tablets to facilitate NCD management and clinical-community linkages. This cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) engaged 3,948 people and 75 PEs across rural and urban areas. Our mixed methods process evaluation was guided by RE-AIM to understand impact and real-world implications of digital health. Data included patient (20) and PE interviews (6), meeting notes, and administrative datasets. We triangulated and analyzed data using thematic analysis, and descriptive and complier average causal effects statistics (CACE).

resultsReach: intervention participants were more urban (66%

conclusionsEvidence for digital health to improve NCD outcomes in LMICs are limited. This study suggests digital health alone is insufficient in countries with low resource health systems and that high cell phone coverage did not translate to access. Adding digital health to an NCD peer network may not significantly benefit an already effective program; mHealth may be better for hard-to-reach populations not connected to other supports. As long as mHealth remains an individual-level intervention, it will not address social determinants of health that drive outcomes. Future digital health research and practice to improve NCD management in LMICs requires engaging government, NGOs, and technology providers to work together to address barriers.

Indexed as

CambodiaDiabeteshypertensionimplementation sciencemHealth

Identifiers

PMID33437836
PMCPMC7793020
OpenAlexW3037986206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.