MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation barriers for mHealth for non-communicable diseases management in low and middle income countries: a scoping review and field-based views from implementers

2020· review· en· W3000110824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentEconomic and Social Research CouncilChinese Academy of Medical SciencesFogarty International CenterDepartment for International DevelopmentMedical Research CouncilWellcomeSouth African Medical Research CouncilConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaWellcome TrustNational Institutes of HealthUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsmHealthPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Non-communicable diseaseBusinessKnowledge managementMedicineComputer scienceNursingGeographyPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background</ns4:bold> : Mobile health (mHealth) has been hailed as a potential gamechanger for non-communicable disease (NCD) management, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Individual studies illustrate barriers to implementation and scale-up, but an overview of implementation issues for NCD mHealth interventions in LMIC is lacking. This paper explores implementation issues from two perspectives: information in published papers and field-based knowledge by people working in this field. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods</ns4:bold> : Through a scoping review publications on mHealth interventions for NCDs in LMIC were identified and assessed with the WHO mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment (mERA) tool. A two-stage web-based survey on implementation barriers was performed within a NCD research network and through two online platforms on mHealth targeting researchers and implementors. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results</ns4:bold> : 16 studies were included in the scoping review. Short Message Service (SMS) messaging was the main implementation tool. Most studies focused on patient-centered outcomes. Most studies did not report on process measures and on contextual conditions influencing implementation decisions. Few publications reported on implementation barriers. The websurvey included twelve projects and the responses revealed additional information, especially on practical barriers related to the patients’ characteristics, low demand, technical requirements, integration with health services and with the wider context. Many interventions used low-cost software and devices with limited capacity that not allowed linkage with routine data or patient records, which incurred fragmented delivery and increased workload. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusion</ns4:bold> : Text messaging is a dominant mHealth tool for patient-directed of quality improvement interventions in LMIC. Publications report little on implementation barriers, while a questionnaire among implementors reveals significant barriers and strategies to address them. This information is relevant for decisions on scale-up of mHealth in the domain of NCD. Further knowledge should be gathered on implementation issues, and the conditions that allow universal coverage. </ns4:p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.333
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it