MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160791537 · doi:10.2196/26358

Integration of mHealth Information and Communication Technologies Into the Clinical Settings of Hospitals in Sub-Saharan Africa: Qualitative Study

2021· article· en· W3160791537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oluwamayowa O. Ogundaini, Retha de la Harpe, Nyx McLean

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthSnowball samplingThematic analysisHealth careQualitative researchNursingInformation and Communications TechnologyeHealthNonprobability samplingMedicinePsychologyPsychological interventionPopulationSociologyEnvironmental healthComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a rapid uptake of mobile-enabled technologies in lower- and upper-middle-income countries because of its portability, ability to reduce mobility, and facilitation of communication. However, there is limited empirical evidence on the usefulness of mobile health (mHealth) information and communication technologies (ICTs) to address constraints associated with the work activities of health care professionals at points of care in hospital settings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore opportunities for integrating mHealth ICTs into the work activities of health care professionals at points of care in clinical settings of hospitals in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, the research question is, "How can mHealth ICTs be integrated into the work activities of health care professionals at points of care in hospital settings?" METHODS: A qualitative approach was adopted to understand the work activities and points at which mHealth ICTs could be integrated to support health care professionals. The techniques of inquiry were semistructured interviews and co-design activities. These techniques were used to ensure the participation of frontline end users and determine how mHealth ICTs could be integrated into the point of care in hospital settings. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to select tertiary hospitals and participants for this study from South Africa and Nigeria. A total of 19 participants, including physicians, nurses, and hospital managers, were engaged in the study. Ethical clearance was granted by the University research committee and the respective hospitals. The data collected were sorted and interpreted using thematic analysis and Activity Analysis and Development model. RESULTS: The findings show that mHealth ICTs are suitable at points where health care professionals consult with patients in the hospital clinics, remote communication is needed, and management of referrals and report writing are required. It was inferred that mHealth ICTs could be negatively disruptive, and some participants perceived the use of mobile devices while engaging with patients as unprofessional. These findings were informed by the outcomes of the interplay between human attributes and technology capabilities during the transformation of the motives of work activity into the intended goal, which is enhanced service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The opportunities to integrate mHealth ICTs into clinical settings depend on the inefficiencies of interaction moments experienced by health care professionals at points of care during patient consultation, remote communication, referrals, and report writing. Thus, the timeliness of mHealth ICTs to address constraints experienced by health care professionals during work activities should take into consideration the type of work activity and the contextual factors that may result in contradictions in relation to technology features. This study contributes toward the design of mHealth ICTs by industry vendors and its usability evaluation for the work activity outcomes of health care professionals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.412 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207