MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409257956 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000776

Implementation and impact of mhealth in the management of diabetes mellitus in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409257956 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésmHealthMedicineContext (archaeology)MEDLINEScopusGlycemicPopulationSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryHealth careMeta-analysisMobile phoneFamily medicineDiabetes mellitusEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionNursingComputer scienceGeographyInternal medicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed the concept of mobile health to support healthcare systems delivery worldwide. Mobile health (mHealth) involves using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for health care provision or delivery services. In the context of Africa, a region that has witnessed a significant increase in mobile phone availability and usage in the last decade and a corresponding rise in the incidence and prevalence of diabetes mellitus, this study has global implications. We conducted a systematic review on the extent of mHealth implementation in managing diabetes mellitus in Africa. We estimated its impact on achieving desired glycemic targets, sustained control, and preventing complications in the past decade. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The studies assessing the utilization of mHealth in managing patients with diabetes mellitus in Africa were considered based on the PICO method: Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes. MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry were searched. Two authors, independent of each other, screened titles and abstracts retrieved using the search strategy, retrieved the full-text articles, and assessed them for eligibility, extracting data after that. A third independent reviewer was brought in to resolve disagreements between the two authors by discussion. The revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis of extracted data was done due to the paucity of eligible studies, and the results were summarized in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: None of the six included studies measured the mean FPG or percentage changes as primary outcomes. Five measured the percentage change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of the study. The percentage change in HbA1c from the baseline ranged from 3.6% to 20.53%, achieving significance in three studies. In the meta-analysis the overall WMD (95% CI) was 0.992 (0.48, 1.50). This, in combination with a high z score of 3.822, p <0.001 suggests a statistically significant overall effect that is not likely due to chance. However, a considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 63.9%, p = 0.026) was present implying that the observed effect may not be generalizable to all the studies due to differences in study characteristics in this case most likely sample size and duration of study. None of the studies addressed the secondary outcomes of measuring the direct relationships between these mHealth interventions and the prevention or early detection of diabetes complications. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c levels among individuals living with type 2 diabetes in Africa following mHealth interventions. Few studies were included in the meta-analysis with significant heterogeneity. Therefore, we recommend more well-designed randomized controlled trials to investigate the implementation and efficacy of mHealth in the management of diabetes mellitus in Africa. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021218674.

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.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,520
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,183
Tête enseignante GPT0,514
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · 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