OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current knowledge of the factors influencing healthcare professional adoption of mobile health (m-health) applications.
METHODS: Covering a period from 2000 to 2014, we conducted a systematic literature search on four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo). We also consulted references from included studies. We included studies if they reported the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding barriers and facilitators to m-health utilization, if they were published in English, Spanish, or French and if they presented an empirical study design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Two authors independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS: The search strategy led to a total of 4223 potentially relevant papers, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria. Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organizational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.
This systematic review describes mHealth interventions directed at healthcare workers in low-resource settings from the PubMed database from March 2009 to May 2015. Thirty-one articles were selected for final review. Four categories emerged from the reviewed articles: data collection during patient visits, communication between health workers and patients, communication between health workers, and public health surveillance. Most studies used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to assess acceptability of use, barriers to use, changes in healthcare delivery, and improved health outcomes. Few papers included theory explicitly to guide development and evaluation of their mHealth programs. Overall, evidence indicated that mobile technology tools, such as smartphones and tablets, substantially benefit healthcare workers, their patients, and healthcare delivery. Limitations to mHealth tools included insufficient program use and sustainability, unreliable Internet and electricity, and security issues. Despite these limitations, this systematic review demonstrates the utility of using mHealth in low-resource settings and the potential for widespread health system improvements using technology.
PURPOSE: To examine approaches being used to evaluate and improve quality of HIV clinical services.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library collection, EMBASE, Global Health, and Web of Science databases.
STUDY SELECTION: Articles and abstracts focused on evaluating or improving quality of HIV clinical services.
DATA EXTRACTION: Country income level, targeted clinical services, and quality evaluation approaches, data sources, and criteria.
RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty journal articles and 46 meeting abstracts were included. Of the 96 studies reviewed, 65% were program evaluations, 71% focused on low- and middle-income countries, and 65% focused on antiretroviral therapy services. With regard to quality, 45% used a quality improvement model or program, 13% set a quality threshold, and 51% examined patient records to evaluate quality. No studies provided a definition for quality HIV care.
CONCLUSION: Quality assurance and improvement of HIV clinical services is increasingly important. This review highlights gaps in knowledge for future research, and may also help countries and programs develop their HIV care quality improvement frameworks.
BACKGROUND: The mobile-health approach is currently knocking the doors of public health to make use of this rapidly advancing technology in developing countries; therefore, it needs a critical look on its capacity in improving health system of developing countries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of studies in literature published till 31(st) October 2013 of last 10 years on key search word: Capacity of mobile-health in improving health system of developing countries was done from medical search engines abstracting databases such as Pub-med, WHO, Cochrane database, Google scholar, and Bio-med Central. Both types of studies elucidating utility and no benefit of mobile-health in developing countries were included as main criteria for deciding the capacity of mobile-health approach in health system of developing countries. M-health studies on areas of impact, effectiveness, and evaluation and previous reviews, conferences data, and exploratory studies were the main study designs incorporated. Studies on m-health in developed world, Indian studies as well data from thesis or dissertation were excluded in this review.
DISCUSSION: Multi-faceted mobile-health applications, strategies, and approaches currently lack proper regulation and standardization from health care authorities, and currently their results also vary from good to no beneficial effects as found in this review.
CONCLUSION: Umbrella of mobile-health approaches must be used intelligently, keeping in mind the fact that, it can provide a greater access and quality health care to larger segments of a rural population and its potential to improve the capacity of health system in developing countries.
The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current knowledge of the factors influencing healthcare professional adoption of mobile health (m-health) applications.
METHODS:
Covering a period from 2000 to 2014, we conducted a systematic literature search on four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo). We also consulted references from included studies. We included studies if they reported the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding barriers and facilitators to m-health utilization, if they were published in English, Spanish, or French and if they presented an empirical study design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Two authors independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS:
The search strategy led to a total of 4223 potentially relevant papers, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria. Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organizational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management).
CONCLUSION:
This systematic review provides a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.
