ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Feasibility and Acceptability of mPallCare
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Palliative care is a key component of comprehensive humanitarian health; yet, access and service capacity remain limited in displacement settings, where fragile health systems struggle to meet the complex needs of people living with advanced illness. Digital health technologies have the potential to enhance the reach and delivery of palliative care; yet, their feasibility and acceptability in humanitarian settings remain underexplored. Objective: We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of mPallCare, a mobile health intervention integrating patient-reported symptom and outcome monitoring with a clinician dashboard, to support palliative care delivery in the Bidibidi Refugee Settlement, Uganda. Methods: A 6-week, uncontrolled, exploratory concurrent mixed methods feasibility study was conducted, involving 32 participants with advanced cancer. Community health workers (ie, village health teams) used the mobile app to document patient-reported symptoms and multidimensional outcomes, which were accessible to clinical teams via a dashboard. Following the use of mPallCare, patient and clinical team participants participated in face-to-face interviews. Data collected via mPallCare were analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess feasibility (ie, compliance with reporting, with a feasibility threshold of ≥65% of scheduled reports), and interview data from a subsample of patient and clinical team participants were analyzed using framework analysis to assess acceptability. Results: Participants completed 84.9% (163/192) of symptom reports and 59.4% (266/448) of outcome reports, with a combined 67% (429/640) of all scheduled reports completed. A modest decline in engagement with report submissions occurred across the 6-week study period. Commonly reported symptoms included headache (27/32, 84.4%), muscle pain (27/32, 84.4%), and dizziness (26/32, 81.3%). Interview findings indicated strong acceptability among patients and clinicians, who described improved communication, enhanced symptom management, and greater continuity of care. Reported challenges included initial navigation difficulties, limited translation accuracy, and technical synchronization issues. Participants and clinical leaders identified the potential for integrating mPallCare within Uganda's district health information system to strengthen data use and visibility of palliative care within health reporting structures. Conclusions: mPallCare is a feasible and acceptable digital health intervention for palliative care in a humanitarian setting. While initial uptake was high, sustaining engagement over time may require simplified reporting processes, enhanced language accessibility, and optimizing the mobile app's connectivity and usability. This feasibility phase highlights key priorities for scale-up, including integration with existing health information systems and adaptation for sustained, equitable use across low-resource and displaced populations.
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.