-
Obstetrics and Gynecology Feb 2020To systematically review the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for improving obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for improving obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a comprehensive search for primary literature in ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Qualifying primary studies had a comparison group, were conducted in countries ranked very high on the United Nations Human Development Index, published in English, and evaluated obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes. Cochrane Collaboration's tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing risk of bias. Summary of evidence tables were created using the United States Preventive Services Task Force Summary of Evidence Table for Evidence Reviews.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS
Of the 3,926 published abstracts identified, 47 met criteria for inclusion and included 31,967 participants. Telehealth interventions overall improved obstetric outcomes related to smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Telehealth interventions decreased the need for high-risk obstetric monitoring office visits while maintaining maternal and fetal outcomes. One study found reductions in diagnosed preeclampsia among women with gestational hypertension. Telehealth interventions were effective for continuation of oral and injectable contraception; one text-based study found increased oral contraception rates at 6 months. Telehealth provision of medication abortion services had similar clinical outcomes compared with in-person care and improved access to early abortion. Few studies suggested utility for telehealth to improve notification of sexually transmitted infection test results and app-based intervention to improve urinary incontinence symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Telehealth interventions were associated with improvements in obstetric outcomes, perinatal smoking cessation, breastfeeding, early access to medical abortion services, and schedule optimization for high-risk obstetrics. Further well-designed studies are needed to examine these interventions and others to generate evidence that can inform decisions about implementation of newer telehealth technologies into obstetrics and gynecology practice.
Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Obstetrics; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Quality of Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Telemedicine
PubMed: 31977782
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003646 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Nov 2019High sedentary time, low physical activity (PA), and low physical fitness place older adults at increased risk of chronic diseases, functional decline, and premature...
BACKGROUND
High sedentary time, low physical activity (PA), and low physical fitness place older adults at increased risk of chronic diseases, functional decline, and premature mortality. Mobile health (mHealth) apps, apps that run on mobile platforms, may help promote active living.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to quantify the effect of mHealth app interventions on sedentary time, PA, and fitness in older adults.
METHODS
We systematically searched five electronic databases for trials investigating the effects of mHealth app interventions on sedentary time, PA, and fitness among community-dwelling older adults aged 55 years and older. We calculated pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) in these outcomes between the intervention and control groups after the intervention period. We performed a Cochrane risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty assessment.
RESULTS
Overall, six trials (486 participants, 66.7% [324/486] women; age mean 68 [SD 6] years) were included (five of these trials were included in the meta-analysis). mHealth app interventions may be associated with decreases in sedentary time (SMD=-0.49; 95% CI -1.02 to 0.03), increases in PA (506 steps/day; 95% CI -80 to 1092), and increases in fitness (SMD=0.31; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.70) in trials of 3 months or shorter and with increases in PA (753 steps/day; 95% CI -147 to 1652) in trials of 6 months or longer. Risk of bias was low for all but one study. The quality of evidence was moderate for PA and sedentary time and low for fitness.
CONCLUSIONS
mHealth app interventions have the potential to promote changes in sedentary time and PA over the short term, but the results did not achieve statistical significance, possibly because studies were underpowered by small participant numbers. We highlight a need for larger trials with longer follow-up to clarify if apps deliver sustained clinically important effects.
Topics: Aged; Exercise; Female; Humans; Mobile Applications; Physical Fitness; Sedentary Behavior; Telemedicine
PubMed: 31778121
DOI: 10.2196/14343 -
Sleep Medicine Feb 2022Telemedicine has been introduced as a new and effective method in dealing with public health challenges, improving access to health care, and reducing healthcare costs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Telemedicine has been introduced as a new and effective method in dealing with public health challenges, improving access to health care, and reducing healthcare costs in today's world. Insomnia is the most common sleep disorder that can be managed with cognitive behavioural therapy, however, access to skilled therapists is an issue. Telemedicine improves access to care and thus, it may facilitate management of insomnia. The aim of this study was to assess whether telemedicine can be as effective as traditional in person sleep medicine service for the diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment of insomnia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, studies related to telemedicine and insomnia were identified and selected, using the keywords of telemedicine, insomnia, sleep disorder, treatment, non-pharmacological treatment. The international databases of Embase, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (WoS), and Google Scholar were searched without a lower time limit, and until July 12, 2021. Data were analysed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2) software, and the significance level of the test was considered P ˂ 0.05.
RESULTS
A systematic review of 16 selected studies showed that telemedicine interventions have a positive effect on improving insomnia in different groups. The meta-analysis was performed on 2 studies. Based on the results, CBTI interventions based on telemedicine have a greater effect on improving chronic insomnia than face to face CBTI with an average difference of 2.05 ± 0.66 based on the random effects model. Moreover, the difference between the mean in the telemedicine intervention group and the non-intervention group was 0.65 ± 0.19, which shows the positive effect of the telemedicine intervention.
CONCLUSION
The use of telemedicine in treatment of insomnia not only accelerates access to sleep services, but can also improve the efficiency of health services in terms of time and cost, as well as therapeutic effects.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Telemedicine; Time Factors
PubMed: 35151065
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2022.01.016 -
Journal of the American Medical... Jul 2021An increasing reliance on telemedicine for older adults with cognitive impairment requires a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators for this unique... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
An increasing reliance on telemedicine for older adults with cognitive impairment requires a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators for this unique patient population.
DESIGN
The study team queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on May 1, 2020, for studies in English published from January 2010 to May 2020.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
We conducted a systematic review of articles investigating the use of telemedicine among older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) that focused on the patient and care partner perspectives.
METHODS
Telemedicine encounter purpose, technological requirements, and findings regarding sensory needs were extracted. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was applied for quality assessment.
RESULTS
The search yielded 3551 abstracts, from which 90 articles were reviewed and 17 were included. The purpose of telemedicine encounters included routine care, cognitive assessment, and telerehabilitation. All studies reported successful implementation of telemedicine, supported by patient and care partner satisfaction, similar results on cognitive assessment and diagnosis compared to in-person visits, and improvement in outcome measures following rehabilitation. Sixteen studies relied on staff and care partners to navigate technologies. Six studies reported participants reporting difficulty hearing the provider during the telemedicine visits. Five studies excluded participants with visual or hearing impairment because of the potential difficulty of using telemedicine technology. No studies reported technological adaptations to account for sensory impairment.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Telemedicine is well received among patients and care partners, but successful delivery incorporates support staff and the care partners to navigate technologies. The exclusion of older adults with sensory impairment, especially given that it is highly prevalent, in developing telemedicine systems may further exacerbate access to care in this population. Adapting technologies for sensory needs is critical to the advancement of accessible dementia care through telemedicine.
Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Telemedicine
PubMed: 33887231
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.03.015 -
Journal of Pediatric Urology Feb 2022Telemedicine has bridged the distance gap between patients and pediatric urologists for over a decade, yet many pediatric urologists have not embraced it as a major part... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Telemedicine has bridged the distance gap between patients and pediatric urologists for over a decade, yet many pediatric urologists have not embraced it as a major part of their practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and clarify the optimal role of telemedicine in pediatric urology, as well as the benefits, barriers, risks, and other important considerations that must be accounted for in its optimal adoption.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this systematic review utilized Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to search PubMed through April 29, 2021 as follows: (Humans [MeSH]) AND ((Child [MeSH]) OR (Infant [MeSH])) AND ((Remote Consultation [MAJR]) OR (Telemedicine [MAJR]) OR (Videoconferencing [MAJR]) OR (Health Services Accessibility [MAJR])) AND ((Urology [MAJR]) OR (Postoperative Care [MAJR]) OR (Urologic Surgical Procedures [MAJR])). 73 resulting articles, plus 21 from manual searches (e.g. papers too recent to have MeSH terms), were screened. 17 met inclusion criteria by discussing telemedicine in context of pediatric urology in a full manuscript. Non-complete manuscripts and papers not specifically considering pediatric urology, or in which telemedicine was not a major focus, were excluded.
RESULTS
17 papers met inclusion criteria. Varied approaches to the topic included surveys, controlled studies, retrospective studies, and descriptive opinion pieces. Quality of evidence varied, representing at least 1851 virtual encounters, 409 in-person encounters, and 68 clinician opinions. Four papers included a comparison or control group, and none utilized randomization. All 17 papers support expanded application of telemedicine in pediatric urology with varied evidence that telemedicine improves patient access to pediatric urologic care, satisfies both patient families and clinicians, is safe, provides equivalent outcomes, and is practicable.
CONCLUSIONS
Implementation of telemedicine in pediatric urology should be expanded as it can practicably and safely improve patient access to pediatric urologic care, satisfy both patient families and clinicians, and maintain outcomes.
Topics: Child; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Infant; Retrospective Studies; Telemedicine; Urologists; Urology
PubMed: 34642111
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.09.024 -
Journal of Medical Systems Dec 2022The objective of this paper is to review and analyze the current state of telemedicine and ehealth in the field of vascular surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to review and analyze the current state of telemedicine and ehealth in the field of vascular surgery.
METHODS
This paper collects the relevant information obtained after reviewing the articles related to telemedicine in vascular surgery, published from 2012 to 2022 contained in scientific databases. In addition, the results obtained are statistically studied based on various factors, such as the year of publication or the search engine. In this way, we obtain a complete vision of the current state of telemedicine in the field of vascular surgery.
RESULTS
After performing this search and applying selection criteria, 29 articles were obtained for subsequent study and discussion, of which 20 were published in the second half of the decade, representing 70% of the results. In the analysis carried out according to the search criteria used, it can be seen that using the word telemedicine we obtained 69% of the articles while with the criteria mHealth and eHealth we only obtained 22% and 9% of the results, respectively. It can be seen that the filter with the most potential content articles was "vascular surgery AND telemedicine". In the analysis performed according to the search engine, it was observed that the Google Scholar database contains 93% of the articles found in the massive search and the relevant articles contained therein represent 52% of the total.
CONCLUSION
An upward trend has been observed in recent years, with a clear increase in the number of publications and much lower figures in the first years. One aspect to highlight is that 47.8% of the articles analyzed focus only on postoperative treatment, which may be due to the help provided by telemedicine in detecting surgical site infections by sending images and videos, this being one of the most common postoperative complications. The analyzed works show the importance of telemedicine in vascular surgery and identify possible future lines of research. In the analysis carried out on the origin of the selected relevant papers, an important interest of the US in this topic is demonstrated since more than 50% of the research contains authors from this country, it is also observed that there is no research from Spain, so this research would be an initial step to determine the weaknesses of telemedicine in this field of medicine and a good opportunity to open a research gap in this branch.
Topics: Humans; Biometry; Databases, Factual; Spain; Telemedicine; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 36471095
DOI: 10.1007/s10916-022-01895-z -
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Jul 2022Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare across a distance using some form of communication technology. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased adoption of...
INTRODUCTION
Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare across a distance using some form of communication technology. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased adoption of telemedicine with national orthopaedic governing bodies advocating its use, as evidence suggests that social distancing maybe necessary until 2022. This systematic review aims to explore evidence for telemedicine in orthopaedics to determine its advantages, validity, effectiveness and utilisation.
METHODS
Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL were systematically searched and articles were included if they involved any form of telephone or video consultation in an orthopaedic population. Findings were synthesised into four themes: patient/clinician satisfaction, accuracy and validity of examination, safety and patient outcomes and cost effectiveness. Quality assessment was undertaken using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included consisting of nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Studies revealed high patient satisfaction with telemedicine for convenience, less waiting and travelling time. Telemedicine was cost effective particularly if patients had to travel long distances, required hospital transport or time off work. No clinically significant differences were found in patient examination nor measurement of patient-reported outcome measures. Telemedicine was reported to be a safe method of consultation.
DISCUSSION
Evidence suggests that telemedicine in orthopaedics can be safe, cost effective, valid in clinical assessment and with high patient/clinician satisfaction. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to elucidate long-term outcomes. This systematic review presents up-to-date evidence on the use of telemedicine and provides data for organisations considering its use during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Orthopedics; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Telemedicine
PubMed: 32762270
DOI: 10.1177/1357633X20938241 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties. Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants); - probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants); - may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported); - probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions; - may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists; - may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants). Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate. Mobile technologies: - probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference -12 minutes, 95% CI -19 to -7; 1 trial, 345 participants); - probably reduce participants' length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference -30 minutes, 95% CI -37 to -25; 1 trial, 345 participants). We did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants' health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants); - may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants); - may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants); - probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants). We did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Cell Phone; Community Health Workers; Computer Security; Dermatologists; Diabetic Retinopathy; Emergency Service, Hospital; Guideline Adherence; Health Care Costs; Health Personnel; Health Status; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction; Primary Health Care; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Referral and Consultation; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Skin Diseases; Telemedicine; Time Factors; Time-to-Treatment; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 32813281
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012927.pub2 -
Telemedicine Journal and E-health : the... Nov 2021A 2012 systematic review by Oliver et al. of evidence-based research on telehospice included 26 research articles published between 2000 and 2010 on the use of...
A 2012 systematic review by Oliver et al. of evidence-based research on telehospice included 26 research articles published between 2000 and 2010 on the use of telehospice connecting hospice professionals with caregivers and their care recipients. The present study replicated research by Oliver et al., extending the time frame from 2010 through 2020. The aim of this study was to answer the question-what is the current state of the evidence related to telehospice services? A systematic review was conducted for the time period 2010 to 2020 of the existing literature researching the topic of telehospice. Thirteen articles (five quantitative, six qualitative, and two mixed methods) were found that meet the inclusion criteria of the study. The Methodological Rigor Scoring Instrument was used to code the qualitative and quantitative articles separately to address methodological differences. The most common findings were related to technology adaptation readiness for staff and caregivers. Studies assessed the use of telehospice that included incorporated technology, such as an electronic tablet, to provide synchronous communication between the provider and the patient/caregiver. Provider and caregiver attitudes regarding telehospice care were largely positive with studies reporting acceptance of telehospice as generally high. The past 10 years have yielded a small but significant body of research on telehospice. Published research on the topic reports a generally high level of patient and caregiver satisfaction about the experience, but limited findings have been published relating to patient outcomes. As adaptation of telehospice and technology has surged in the past year, it is expected that additional research on the impact of technology on clinical outcomes will emerge in the future.
Topics: Humans; Telemedicine
PubMed: 33512303
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0451 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings.
MAIN RESULTS
Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.
Topics: Cell Phone; Delivery of Health Care; Developing Countries; Health Personnel; Health Services; Humans; Perception; Primary Health Care; Qualitative Research; Rural Health Services; Telemedicine; Text Messaging
PubMed: 32216074
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011942.pub2