ArticlePLOS digital health2026
An offline-first electronic health record for vulnerable populations: A mixed-methods feasibility study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While there is a growing body of research showing that Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can improve health outcomes in limited resourced settings, these EHRs often require continual access to an internet connection and are challenging to customize and deploy. To address these challenges, Hikma Health (HH) has designed a free, open-source and offline-first EHR for physicians providing care in low-resource settings. This paper describes a mixed-methods study to understand the feasibility of the HH EHR in two clinics that care for displaced or rural populations in Lebanon and Nicaragua. Clinic demographics and metrics were collected through REDCap and descriptive statistics were analyzed. Using a framework analysis, in-depth interviews were conducted at both sites until thematic saturation. Interviews were coded by three authors with an inter-rater reliability kappa score of 7.6. Quantitative data showed that after about three hours of training and three weeks of use, participants were comfortable using the HH EHR and the HH EHR decreased patient interview times by three minutes. Quantitative data showed that these findings were due to the ease and simplicity of the modular workflows. However, when used in settings that required syncing multiple times during a patient's encounter with different clinicians, the system faced challenges due to inconsistent network connectivity and the design of the sync functionality. The HH EHR was a feasible solution for offline-first settings. Both clinical sites observed that the implementation of the EHR enhanced documentation, decreased medical errors, and improved patient outcomes through tracking medications and diseases.
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.