Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39068478›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

The impact of mobile health interventions on service users' health outcomes and the role of health professions: a systematic review of systematic reviews-protocol.

Fathiya Alkhuzaimi, Deborah Rainey, Christine Brown Wilson, Jacqueline Bloomfield

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Fathiya AlkhuzaimiSchool of Nursing and Midwifery Queen's University Belfast, University Rd., Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland. falkhuzaimi01@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0009-0000-8766-0893
Deborah RaineySchool of Nursing and Midwifery Queen's University Belfast, University Rd., Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland.
Christine Brown WilsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery Queen's University Belfast, University Rd., Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland.
Jacqueline BloomfieldSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sydney, Susan Wakil Health Building Western Avenue Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health tools have gained prominence in global health care in recent years. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have demonstrated their impact on managing healthcare service users' health. A pilot search revealed many systematic reviews on the effectiveness of mobile health tools on service users' health outcomes. However, how the role of healthcare professionals in promoting the adoption of mobile health may lead to improved outcomes needs to be clarified. Therefore, this systematic review aims to synthesise existing systematic reviews that examine both the impact of mobile health interventions on service users' outcomes and the role of healthcare professionals in facilitating the adoption of mobile health solutions.

methodsFive electronic databases will be searched: EMBASE, CINHAL Plus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews exploring the impact of mobile health interventions on service users' outcomes and the role of healthcare professionals in facilitating the adoption of mobile health solutions. Systematic reviews published in English dated from January 2015 to June 2024 will be included. Screening and selection of the reviews against inclusion and exclusion criteria will be performed by three independent reviewers, as well as data extraction and quality assessment. DISCUSSION: Current systematic reviews in mHealth have primarily focused on assessing the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for managing a range of conditions. While these reviews provide valuable input into the outcomes for mHealth, more is needed to know about the impact of the involvement of health professions on service users' outcomes when adopting mHealth. This systematic review of systematic reviews aims to bridge this critical gap in the literature by critically appraising and synthesising the evidence of mHealth interventions' impact on service user outcomes and the level of involvement of health professionals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42023414435.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as TopicTelemedicineHealth OccupationsHealth PersonnelHumansProfessional RoleDigital healthHealth professionsLong-term conditionsMobile healthPatients’ outcomes

Identifiers

PMID39068478
PMCPMC11283682

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.