Qualitative Evaluation of mHealth Implementation for Infectious Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Narrative Review.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR mHealth and uHealth Pub Date : 2024-12-13 DOI:10.2196/55189
Josephine Greenall-Ota, H Manisha Yapa, Greg J Fox, Joel Negin
{"title":"Qualitative Evaluation of mHealth Implementation for Infectious Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Narrative Review.","authors":"Josephine Greenall-Ota, H Manisha Yapa, Greg J Fox, Joel Negin","doi":"10.2196/55189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have the potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by aiding health workers to strengthen service delivery, as well as by helping patients and communities manage and prevent diseases. It is crucial to understand how best to implement mHealth within already burdened health services to maximally improve health outcomes and sustain the intervention in LMICs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of mHealth interventions for infectious diseases in LMICs, drawing on a health systems analysis framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist to select qualitative or mixed methods studies reporting on determinants of already implemented infectious disease mHealth interventions in LMICs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, the Social Sciences Citation Index, and Global Health. We extracted characteristics of the mHealth interventions and implementation experiences, then conducted an analysis of determinants using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 10,494 titles for screening, among which 20 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 9 studies examined mHealth smartphone apps and 11 examined SMS text messaging interventions. The interventions addressed HIV (n=7), malaria (n=4), tuberculosis (n=4), pneumonia (n=2), dengue (n=1), human papillomavirus (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1), and respiratory illnesses or childhood infectious diseases (n=2), with 2 studies addressing multiple diseases. Within these studies, 10 interventions were intended for use by health workers and the remainder targeted patients, at-risk individuals, or community members. Access to reliable technological resources, familiarity with technology, and training and support were key determinants of implementation. Additional themes included users forgetting to use the mHealth interventions and mHealth intervention designs affecting ease of use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Acceptance of the intervention and the capacity of existing health care system infrastructure and resources are 2 key factors affecting the implementation of mHealth interventions. Understanding the interaction between mHealth interventions, their implementation, and health systems will improve their uptake in LMICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14756,"journal":{"name":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","volume":"12 ","pages":"e55189"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660726/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/55189","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have the potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by aiding health workers to strengthen service delivery, as well as by helping patients and communities manage and prevent diseases. It is crucial to understand how best to implement mHealth within already burdened health services to maximally improve health outcomes and sustain the intervention in LMICs.

Objective: We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of mHealth interventions for infectious diseases in LMICs, drawing on a health systems analysis framework.

Methods: We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist to select qualitative or mixed methods studies reporting on determinants of already implemented infectious disease mHealth interventions in LMICs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, the Social Sciences Citation Index, and Global Health. We extracted characteristics of the mHealth interventions and implementation experiences, then conducted an analysis of determinants using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework.

Results: We identified 10,494 titles for screening, among which 20 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 9 studies examined mHealth smartphone apps and 11 examined SMS text messaging interventions. The interventions addressed HIV (n=7), malaria (n=4), tuberculosis (n=4), pneumonia (n=2), dengue (n=1), human papillomavirus (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1), and respiratory illnesses or childhood infectious diseases (n=2), with 2 studies addressing multiple diseases. Within these studies, 10 interventions were intended for use by health workers and the remainder targeted patients, at-risk individuals, or community members. Access to reliable technological resources, familiarity with technology, and training and support were key determinants of implementation. Additional themes included users forgetting to use the mHealth interventions and mHealth intervention designs affecting ease of use.

Conclusions: Acceptance of the intervention and the capacity of existing health care system infrastructure and resources are 2 key factors affecting the implementation of mHealth interventions. Understanding the interaction between mHealth interventions, their implementation, and health systems will improve their uptake in LMICs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低收入和中等收入国家传染病护理移动医疗实施的定性评价:叙述性回顾。
背景:通过帮助卫生工作者加强服务提供,以及帮助患者和社区管理和预防疾病,移动卫生(mHealth)干预措施有可能改善低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)的健康结果。至关重要的是要了解如何在已经负担沉重的卫生服务中最好地实施移动医疗,以最大限度地改善卫生结果并维持中低收入国家的干预。目的:我们旨在利用卫生系统分析框架,确定中低收入国家实施传染病移动医疗干预的主要障碍和促进因素。方法:我们遵循PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)清单,选择定性或混合方法研究,报告中低收入国家已经实施的传染病移动卫生干预措施的决定因素。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed、CINAHL、社会科学引文索引和全球健康。我们提取了移动医疗干预措施的特征和实施经验,然后使用慢性病定制实施框架对决定因素进行了分析。结果:我们筛选了10494篇论文,其中20篇符合我们的入选标准。其中,9项研究调查了移动健康智能手机应用程序,11项研究调查了短信干预。这些干预措施涉及艾滋病毒(n=7)、疟疾(n=4)、结核病(n=4)、肺炎(n=2)、登革热(n=1)、人乳头瘤病毒(n=1)、COVID-19 (n=1)和呼吸道疾病或儿童传染病(n=2),其中2项研究涉及多种疾病。在这些研究中,10项干预措施旨在供卫生工作者使用,其余针对患者、高危个体或社区成员。获得可靠的技术资源、熟悉技术、培训和支助是执行的关键决定因素。其他主题包括用户忘记使用移动保健干预措施和影响易用性的移动保健干预措施设计。结论:对干预措施的接受程度和现有卫生保健系统基础设施和资源的能力是影响移动健康干预措施实施的两个关键因素。了解移动医疗干预措施及其实施和卫生系统之间的相互作用,将提高中低收入国家对移动医疗干预措施的接受程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
JMIR mHealth and uHealth Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
159
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR mHealth and uHealth (JMU, ISSN 2291-5222) is a spin-off journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JMIR mHealth and uHealth is indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and in June 2017 received a stunning inaugural Impact Factor of 4.636. The journal focusses on health and biomedical applications in mobile and tablet computing, pervasive and ubiquitous computing, wearable computing and domotics. JMIR mHealth and uHealth publishes since 2013 and was the first mhealth journal in Pubmed. It publishes even faster and has a broader scope with including papers which are more technical or more formative/developmental than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
期刊最新文献
An Explanation Interface for Healthy Food Recommendations in a Real-Life Workplace Deployment: User-Centered Design Study. Participant Compliance With Ecological Momentary Assessment in Movement Behavior Research Among Adolescents and Emerging Adults: Systematic Review. Validity, Accuracy, and Safety Assessment of an Aerobic Interval Training Using an App-Based Prehabilitation Program (PROTEGO MAXIMA Trial) Before Major Surgery: Prospective, Interventional Pilot Study. Utility of Digital Phenotyping Based on Wrist Wearables and Smartphones in Psychosis: Observational Study. Smartphone-Based Care Platform Versus Traditional Care in Primary Knee Arthroplasty in the Unites States: Cost Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1