ArticleAfrican health sciences2023
mHealth app usage amongst paediatric department doctors in South Africa.
Article in African health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of practical emergency simulation training in primary health care: Lessons learnt.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Article
- Editor's choice: Sexual reproductive health, child issues, NCDs, surgery, infections and health systems - a salad of sorts.African health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Smartphone and mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) have become an integral part of the day-to-day function of healthcare professionals, allowing quick, comprehensive, and up-to-date access to current clinical guidelines and other reference material. Objective: To evaluate the extent and nature of use of mHealth apps by paediatric department doctors in South Africa. Methods: E-mails requesting study participation were sent out to 285 paediatric department doctors employed at six hospitals affiliated to the University of the Witwatersrand. Willing participants were directed to complete the online study questionnaire. Results: A total of 150 respondents completed the questionnaire. All respondents owned a mobile device and already had one or more mHealth apps, 95.3% were unaware of any regulatory body responsible for regulating the use of mHealth apps, 86.0% did not have access to free Wi-Fi at work and 87.3% used an mHealth app at least once daily. Drug dosing (81.3%), diagnostic (59.3%) and clinical decision-making (44.7%) apps were the most common app categories with Medscape® (62.0%) and EMGuidance® (41.3%) being the most frequently used apps. Peer recommendation (76.0%), app credibility (74.0%) and app functionality (66.0%) were the most common factors that were considered by respondents prior to downloading or using an mHealth app. Conclusion: Medical apps are frequently used among paediatric medical doctors of all ranks. Drug dosing, diagnostic and clinical decision-making apps are the most common app categories in use. Improved awareness of the regulations pertaining to the use of mHealth apps amongst doctors is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.