Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33860797›Full record

ReviewHealth policy and planning2021

eHealth for service delivery in conflict: a narrative review of the application of eHealth technologies in contemporary conflict settings.

Gemma Bowsher, Nassim El Achi, Katrin Augustin, Kristen Meagher, Abdulkarim Ekzayez, Bayard Roberts, Preeti Patel

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health policy and planning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Exploring the patient perspective in pulmonary hypertension.The European respiratory journal · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gemma BowsherR4HC-MENA, R4HSSS & Conflict & Health Research Group, King's College London, Strand Ln, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Nassim El AchiR4HC-MENA, Global Health Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon.
Katrin AugustinSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 1UL, UK.
Kristen MeagherR4HC-MENA, R4HSSS & Conflict & Health Research Group, King's College London, Strand Ln, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Abdulkarim EkzayezR4HC-MENA, R4HSSS & Conflict & Health Research Group, King's College London, Strand Ln, London WC2R 2LS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2104-3363
Bayard RobertsRECAP, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Preeti PatelR4HC-MENA & R4HSSS, Dept War Studies, King's College London, Strand Lane, LondonWC2R 2LS, UK.
King's College London · GBAmerican University of Beirut · LBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research 131207Research capacity strengthening and knowledge generation ES/P010873/1Research for Health in Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (R4HC-MENA) ES/P010962/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of eHealth in conflict settings is increasingly important to address geographic, epidemiologic and clinical disparities. This study categorizes various forms of eHealth usage in conflict and aims to identify gaps in evidence to make recommendations for further research and practice. The analysis was carried out via a narrative hermeneutic review methodology. Articles that fulfilled the following screening criteria were reviewed: (1) describing an eHealth intervention in active conflict or ongoing insurgency, (2) an eHealth intervention targeting a conflict-affected population, (3) an e-learning platform for delivery in conflict settings and (4) non-interventional descriptive reviews relating to eHealth in conflict. Of the 489 papers eligible for screening, 46 merited final inclusion. Conflict settings described include Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Chechnya, Gaza and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thirty-six studies described specific eHealth initiatives, while the remainder were more generic review papers exploring general principles. Analysis resulted in the elucidation of three final categories of current eHealth activity in conflict-affected settings: (1) eHealth for clinical management, (2) e-learning for healthcare in conflict and (3) eHealth for information management in conflict. Obvious disparities in the distribution of technological dividends from eHealth in conflict are demonstrated by this review. Conflict-affected populations are predominantly subject to ad hoc and voluntary initiatives delivered by diaspora and civil society organizations. While the deployment of eHealth technologies in conflict settings is increasingly normalized, there is a need for further clarification of global norms relating to practice in this context.

Indexed as

TelemedicineAfghanistanCongoHumansPakistanSyriaConflictevidence-based medicinehealth planninghealth services researchrefugee health

Identifiers

PMID33860797
PMCPMC8355470
OpenAlexW3153275568

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.