Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34202242›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Use of Technology to Promote Health and Wellbeing of People Who Are Homeless: A Systematic Review.

Vanessa Heaslip, Stephen Richer, Bibha Simkhada, Huseyin Dogan, Sue Green

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Vanessa HeaslipDepartment of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2037-4002
Stephen RicherDepartment of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.
Bibha SimkhadaDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK.
Huseyin DoganDepartment of Computing and Informatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9138-9319
Sue GreenDepartment of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1760-3679

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople who are homeless experience poorer health outcomes and challenges accessing healthcare contribute to the experienced health inequality. There has been an expansion in using technology to promote health and wellbeing and technology has the potential to enable people who are socially excluded, including those who are homeless, to be able to access health services. However, little research has been undertaken to explore how technology is used to promote health and wellbeing for those who are homeless. This review aims to address the questions: 'what mobile health (mHealth) related technology is used by homeless populations' and 'what is the health impact of mobile technology for homeless populations'?

methodsAn integrative review methodology was employed. A systematic search of electronic databases was carried out between 4 January 2021 and 30 April 2021, searching for papers published between 2015 and 2021, which yielded 2113 hits, relevant papers were selected using specified inclusion and exclusion criteria reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis. The quality assessment of each paper included in the review was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

resultsSeventeen papers were selected for review and thematic analysis identified four themes: technology ownership, barriers to use, connectivity and health benefits.

conclusionIt is evident that technology has the potential to support the health and wellbeing of individuals who are homeless; however, there are challenges regarding connectivity to the internet, as well as issues of trust in who has access to personal data and how they are used. Further research is needed to explore the use of health technology with people who are homeless to address these challenges.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesIll-Housed PersonsDelivery of Health CareHealth PromotionHumansTechnologyhomelessmarginalisedmobile healthsocial exclusiontechnologyvulnerable

Identifiers

PMID34202242
PMCPMC8296891

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.