Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37377558›Full record

ReviewDigital health

mHealth in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe: A systematic review comparing the use and availability of mHealth approaches in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe.

Genet Tadese Aboye, Martijn Vande Walle, Gizeaddis Lamesgin Simegn, Jean-Marie Aerts

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Genet Tadese AboyeM3-BIORES (Measure, Model & Manage Bioreponses), Division of Animal and Human Health Engineering, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3156-8809
Martijn Vande WalleM3-BIORES (Measure, Model & Manage Bioreponses), Division of Animal and Human Health Engineering, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gizeaddis Lamesgin SimegnSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Jean-Marie AertsM3-BIORES (Measure, Model & Manage Bioreponses), Division of Animal and Human Health Engineering, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jimma University · ETKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: mHealth can help with healthcare service delivery for various health issues, but there's a significant gap in the availability and use of mHealth systems between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, despite the ongoing digitalization of the global healthcare system. Objective: This work aims to compare and investigate the use and availability of mHealth systems in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, and identify gaps in current mHealth development and implementation in both regions. Methods: The study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for article search and selection to ensure an unbiased comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed) were used, and articles were evaluated based on predetermined criteria. Details on the mHealth system type, goal, patient type, health concern, and development stage were collected and recorded in a Microsoft Excel worksheet. Results: The search query produced 1020 articles for sub-Saharan Africa and 2477 articles for Europe. After screening for eligibility, 86 articles for sub-Saharan Africa and 297 articles for Europe were included. To minimize bias, two reviewers conducted the article screening and data retrieval. Sub-Saharan Africa used SMS and call-based mHealth methods for consultation and diagnosis, mainly for young patients such as children and mothers, and for issues such as HIV, pregnancy, childbirth, and child care. Europe relied more on apps, sensors, and wearables for monitoring, with the elderly as the most common patient group, and the most common health issues being cardiovascular disease and heart failure. Conclusion: Wearable technology and external sensors are heavily used in Europe, whereas they are seldom used in sub-Saharan Africa. More efforts should be made to use the mHealth system to improve health outcomes in both regions, incorporating more cutting-edge technologies like wearables internal and external sensors. Undertaking context-based studies, identifying determinants of mHealth systems use, and considering these determinants during mHealth system design could enhance mHealth availability and utilization.

Indexed as

Digital healtheHealthEuropehealthcaremHealthsub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID37377558
PMCPMC10291558
OpenAlexW4381798358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.