Current Status of Barriers to mHealth Access Among Patients With Stroke and Steps Toward the Digital Health Era: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) offers significant benefits for patients with stroke, facilitating remote monitoring and personalized health care solutions beyond traditional settings. However, there is a dearth of comprehensive data, particularly qualitative insights, on the barriers to mHealth access. Understanding these barriers is crucial for devising strategies to enhance mHealth use among patients with stroke. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the recent literature focusing on barriers to mHealth access among patients with stroke. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus Full Text was conducted for literature published between 2017 and 2023. Abstracts and full texts were independently screened based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data synthesis was performed using the convergent integrated analysis framework recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were qualitative studies (about 42%), followed by mixed methods (25%), pilot studies (about 17%), nonrandomized controlled trials (about 8%), and observational studies (about 8%). Participants included patients with stroke, caregivers, and various health care professionals. The most common mHealth practices were home-based telerehabilitation (30%) and poststroke mHealth and telecare services (20%). Identified barriers were categorized into two primary themes: (1) at the patient level and (2) at the health provider-patient-device interaction level. The first theme includes 2 subthemes: health-related issues and patient acceptability. The second theme encompassed 3 subthemes: infrastructure challenges (including software, networking, and hardware), support system deficiencies, and time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review underscores significant barriers to mHealth adoption among patients with stroke. Addressing these barriers in future research is imperative to ensure that mHealth solutions effectively meet patients' needs.
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 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 | 0.028 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".