MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3205613401 · doi:10.2196/26041

Digital mHealth and Virtual Care Use During COVID-19 in 4 Countries: Rapid Landscape Review

2021· review· en· W3205613401 sur OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alison Müller, Alessandro Cau, Muhammed Semakula, Osman Abdullahi, Andrew Hayward, Sabin Nsanzimana, Richard Lester

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Établissements canadiensVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesGrand Challenges Canada
Mots-clésmHealthPsychological interventionHealth careContact tracingTelemedicinePandemicPublic healthBusinessDigital healthGovernment (linguistics)Internet privacyNursingMedicinePublic relationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, providing health care while maintaining social distancing has resulted in the need to provide care remotely, support quarantined or isolated individuals, monitor infected individuals and their close contacts, as well as disseminate accurate information regarding COVID-19 to the public. This has led to an unprecedented rapid expansion of digital tools to provide digitized virtual care globally, especially mobile phone-facilitated health interventions, called mHealth. To help keep abreast of different mHealth and virtual care technologies being used internationally to facilitate patient care and public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, we carried out a rapid investigation of solutions being deployed and considered in 4 countries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to describe mHealth and the digital and contact tracing technologies being used in the health care management of the COVID-19 pandemic among 2 high-income and 2 low-middle income countries. METHODS: We compared virtual care interventions used for COVID-19 management among 2 high-income countries (the United Kingdom and Canada) and 2 low-middle income (Kenya and Rwanda) countries. We focused on interventions used to facilitate patient care and public health. Information regarding specific virtual care technologies was procured from a variety of resources including gray literature, government and health organization websites, and coauthors' personal experiences as implementers of COVID-19 virtual care strategies. Search engine queries were performed to find health information that would be easily accessible to the general public, with keywords including "COVID-19," "contact-tracing," "tool-kit," "telehealth," and "virtual care," in conjunction with corresponding national health authorities. RESULTS: We identified a variety of technologies in Canada, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, and Kenya being used for patient care and public health. These countries are using both video and text message-based platforms to facilitate communication with health care providers (eg, WelTel and Zoom). Nationally developed contact tracing apps are provided free to the public, with most of them using Bluetooth-based technology. We identified that often multiple complimentary technologies are being utilized for different aspects of patient care and public health with the common purpose to disseminate information safely. There was a negligible difference among the types of technologies used in both high-income and low-middle income countries, although the latter implemented virtual care interventions earlier during the pandemic's first wave, which may account for their effective response. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care and mHealth technologies have evolved rapidly as a tool for health care support for both patient care and public health. It is evident that, on an international level, a variety of mHealth and virtual care interventions, often in combination, are required to be able to address patient care and public health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic, independent of a country's economic standing.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,925
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,005
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,140
Tête enseignante GPT0,465
Écart entre enseignants0,325 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations10
Publié2021
Routes d'admission4
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetCOVID-19 Digital Contact TracingTravaux en français237 207