Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36517869›Full record

ReviewConflict and health2022

Telemedicine interventions in six conflict-affected countries in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region: a systematic review.

Pylin Parkes, Timesh D Pillay, Yamama Bdaiwi, Remi Simpson, Nadim Almoshmosh, Lina Murad, Aula Abbara

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Conflict and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Feasibility and Acceptability of mPallCareJMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  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

7 authors.

Pylin ParkesSt Marys Hospital, Imperial College, London, W2 1NY, UK. pylin.parkes1@nhs.net.
Timesh D PillaySt Marys Hospital, Imperial College, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Yamama BdaiwiSt Marys Hospital, Imperial College, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Remi SimpsonSt Marys Hospital, Imperial College, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Nadim AlmoshmoshNAFS Health & Wellness Clinic, Bury St Edmunds, UK.
Lina MuradMetropolitan Access Centre, Washington, DC, USA.
Aula AbbaraSt Marys Hospital, Imperial College, London, W2 1NY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has escalated the use of telemedicine in both high and low resource settings however its use has preceded this, particularly in conflict-affected settings. Several countries in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean (EMR) region are affected by complex, protracted crises. Though telemedicine has been used in such settings, there has been no comprehensive assessment of what interventions are used, their efficacy, barriers, or current research gaps. MAIN BODY: A systematic search of ten academic databases and 3 grey literature sources from January 1st 2000 to December 31st 2020 was completed, identifying telemedicine interventions in select EMR conflict-affected settings and relevant enablers and barriers to their implementation. Included articles reported on telemedicine use in six conflict-affected EMR countries (or territories) graded as WHO Health Emergencies: Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Data were extracted and narratively synthesised due to heterogeneity in study design and outcomes. Of 3419 articles identified, twenty-one peer-reviewed and three grey literature sources met the inclusion criteria. We analysed these by context, intervention, and evaluation. CONTEXT: eight related to Afghanistan, eight to Syria and seven to Iraq with one each in Yemen and Gaza. Most were implemented by humanitarian or academic organisations with projects mostly initiated in the United States or Europe and mostly by physicians. The in-country links were mostly health professionals rather than patients seeking specialist inputs for specialities not locally available.

interventionsthese included both SAF (store and forward) and RT (real-time) with a range of specialities represented including radiology, histopathology, dermatology, mental health, and intensive care. EVALUATION: most papers were observational or descriptive with few describing quality measures of interventions.

conclusionsTelemedicine interventions are feasible in conflict-affected settings in EMR using low-cost, accessible technologies. However, few implemented interventions reported on evaluation strategies or had these built in. The ad hoc nature of some of the interventions, which relied on volunteers without sustained financial or academic investment, could pose challenges to quality and sustainability. There was little exploration of confidentiality, ethical standards, data storage or local healthcare worker and patient acceptability.

Indexed as

AfghanistanConflictGazaIraqLibyaSyriaTelehealthTelemedicineTele-mental healthYemen

Identifiers

PMID36517869
PMCPMC9748883

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.