Qualitative Evaluation of mHealth Implementation for Infectious Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have the potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by aiding health workers to strengthen service delivery, as well as by helping patients and communities manage and prevent diseases. It is crucial to understand how best to implement mHealth within already burdened health services to maximally improve health outcomes and sustain the intervention in LMICs. Objective: We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of mHealth interventions for infectious diseases in LMICs, drawing on a health systems analysis framework. Methods: We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist to select qualitative or mixed methods studies reporting on determinants of already implemented infectious disease mHealth interventions in LMICs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, the Social Sciences Citation Index, and Global Health. We extracted characteristics of the mHealth interventions and implementation experiences, then conducted an analysis of determinants using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework. Results: We identified 10,494 titles for screening, among which 20 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 9 studies examined mHealth smartphone apps and 11 examined SMS text messaging interventions. The interventions addressed HIV (n=7), malaria (n=4), tuberculosis (n=4), pneumonia (n=2), dengue (n=1), human papillomavirus (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1), and respiratory illnesses or childhood infectious diseases (n=2), with 2 studies addressing multiple diseases. Within these studies, 10 interventions were intended for use by health workers and the remainder targeted patients, at-risk individuals, or community members. Access to reliable technological resources, familiarity with technology, and training and support were key determinants of implementation. Additional themes included users forgetting to use the mHealth interventions and mHealth intervention designs affecting ease of use. Conclusions: Acceptance of the intervention and the capacity of existing health care system infrastructure and resources are 2 key factors affecting the implementation of mHealth interventions. Understanding the interaction between mHealth interventions, their implementation, and health systems will improve their uptake in LMICs.
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 | 0.043 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".