MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2414849920 · doi:10.2196/mededu.5336

Enabling Access to Medical and Health Education in Rwanda Using Mobile Technology: Needs Assessment for the Development of Mobile Medical Educator Apps

2016· article· en· W2414849920 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean Christophe Rusatira, Brian Tomaszewski, Vincent Dusabejambo, Vincent Ndayiragije, Snedden Gonsalves, Aishwarya Sawant, Angeline Mumararungu, George Gasana, Etienne Amendezo, Anne R. Haake, Léon Mutesa

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Medical Education · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedical educationHealth careMobile technologyEconomic shortageMedicineHealth technologyDeveloping countryNursingMobile devicePolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lack of access to health and medical education resources for doctors in the developing world is a serious global health problem. In Rwanda, with a population of 11 million, there is only one medical school, hence a shortage in well-trained medical staff. The growth of interactive health technologies has played a role in the improvement of health care in developed countries and has offered alternative ways to offer continuous medical education while improving patient's care. However, low and middle-income countries (LMIC) like Rwanda have struggled to implement medical education technologies adapted to local settings in medical practice and continuing education. Developing a user-centered mobile computing approach for medical and health education programs has potential to bring continuous medical education to doctors in rural and urban areas of Rwanda and influence patient care outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine user requirements, currently available resources, and perspectives for potential medical education technologies in Rwanda. METHODS: Information baseline and needs assessments data collection were conducted in all 44 district hospitals (DHs) throughout Rwanda. The research team collected qualitative data through interviews with 16 general practitioners working across Rwanda and 97 self-administered online questionnaires for rural areas. Data were collected and analyzed to address two key questions: (1) what are the currently available tools for the use of mobile-based technology for medical education in Rwanda, and (2) what are user's requirements for the creation of a mobile medical education technology in Rwanda? RESULTS: General practitioners from different hospitals highlighted that none of the available technologies avail local resources such as the Ministry of Health (MOH) clinical treatment guidelines. Considering the number of patients that doctors see in Rwanda, an average of 32 patients per day, there is need for a locally adapted mobile education app that utilizes specific Rwandan medical education resources. Based on our results, we propose a mobile medical education app that could provide many benefits such as rapid decision making with lower error rates, increasing the quality of data management and accessibility, and improving practice efficiency and knowledge. In areas where Internet access is limited, the proposed mobile medical education app would need to run on a mobile device without Internet access. CONCLUSIONS: A user-centered design approach was adopted, starting with a needs assessment with representative end users, which provided recommendations for the development of a mobile medical education app specific to Rwanda. Specific app features were identified through the needs assessment and it was evident that there will be future benefits to ongoing incorporation of user-centered design methods to better inform the software development and improve its usability. Results of the user-centered design reported here can inform other medical education technology developments in LMIC to ensure that technologies developed are usable by all stakeholders.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,953
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,537
Écart entre enseignants0,480 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations33
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Medical EducationMême sujetMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207