The evolution and mapping trends of mobile health (m-Health): a bibliometric analysis (1997–2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobile health (m-Health) is widely acknowledged as a pivotal domain for improving global healthcare and driving its digital health transformation. Despite the vast amount of literature published in recent years, bibliometric studies on m-Health remain limited in scope and coverage. This study presents a comprehensive review of m-Health literature extracted from Scopus and PubMed databases, spanning the period from 1997 to 2023, including publications during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: The combined Scopus and PubMed databases were used in this study. The search formula for the literature retrieval used the most appropriate and relevant keywords to m-Health. The bibliometric data importation, extraction and analysis of authors, titles, publication date, publication place, publisher, volume number, issue number, citation count, document type, author keywords, affiliation were all carried out using the ‘Biblioshiny’, ‘EndNote X9®’, ‘Microsoft Excel®’ and ‘Microsoft Access®’ software tools. Duplicate records were manually identified and removed. Visualization maps illustrating the recurrent keywords, collaboration patterns, and prolific publishing countries were generated using ‘VOSviewer®’. Results: A total of 37,470 (20,703 from Scopus and 16,767 from PubMed) publications were selected for the literature analysis. The results provided the definitive literature evidence on the origin of the concept of m-Health in 2003. Significant increase in the publications followed the global surge of smart phones usage in 2007, and the emergence of m-Health applications (Apps) and their global markets and ecosystems. The number of the publications peaked between 2013 and 2022 with most citations in 2022. There was noticeable spike in m-Health literature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results also showed that most of the highly cited publications, leading institutions, and most prolific authors were predominantly from the developed countries. The USA has the highest number of publications followed by the UK, Australia, Germany, Canada and China, with most of the prolific authors originating from these countries. Conclusions: In conclusion, while there has been a remarkable increase in global m-Health publications since 2003, most of the impactful literature and publications in this area originated from selected countries in the developed world. The study indicates a significant disparity between the published literature from developed compared to the developing countries. Addressing this disparity, further bibliographical studies are required to address these and other literature gaps.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.157 | 0.264 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".