MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131682279 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-243773/v1

Mobile technology as a health literacy enabler in African rural areas: a literature review

2021· review· en· W3131682279 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ismaila Ouédraogo, Borlli Michel Jonas Somé, Roland Benedikter, Gayo Diallo

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de BordeauxAgence Universitaire de la Francophonie
KeywordsMobile phoneHealth literacyEnablingEnthusiasmMobile technologyLiteracyHealth careIdentification (biology)Rural areaEconomic growthPolitical sciencePublic relationsMobile deviceData scienceBusinessComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebPsychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Since the launch of mobile phones three decade ago, the latter have been used to support healthcare systems through various mobile health (m-health) applications. In recent years, multiple mobile phone-based health projects and applications have emerged. Despite the great enthusiasm around m-health, few studies have examined the use of cell phones to improve health literacy in Africa. This paper aims to review studies related to the contribution of mobile technologies in improving health literacy in rural areas of Africa. Methods: We performed a four-step systematic review to identify relevant publications: (1) Database selection, (2) Keyword search, (3) Study selection and (4) Data extraction. In addition, manual searching methods were used to find keywords related to m-health initiatives in Africa. Discussion: Our search resulted in the identification of 38 studies and initiatives related to health literacy and mobile technologies in Africa. However, few of these studies focused on health literacy and mobile technologies in rural areas of Africa. We also found that m-health initiatives to date have not been inclusive, with very few integrating local languages in the development of m-health solutions. Our findings thus point to various potential avenues to be investigated in the future.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.482 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207