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.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide, and especially in developing countries do not receive this amount of care. Poor attendance of ANC is associated with delivery of low birthweight babies and more neonatal deaths. ANC may include education on nutrition, potential problems with pregnancy or childbirth, child care and prevention or detection of disease during pregnancy.This review focused on community-based interventions and health systems-related interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of health system and community interventions for improving coverage of antenatal care and other perinatal health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Trials of any interventions to improve ANC coverage were eligible for inclusion. Trials were also eligible if they targeted specific and related outcomes, such as maternal or perinatal death, but also reported ANC coverage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 trials involving approximately 400,000 women. Some trials tested community-based interventions to improve uptake of antenatal care (media campaigns, education or financial incentives for pregnant women), while other trials looked at health systems interventions (home visits for pregnant women or equipment for clinics). Most trials took place in low- and middle-income countries, and 29 of the 34 trials used a cluster-randomised design. We assessed 30 of the 34 trials as of low or unclear overall risk of bias. Comparison 1: One intervention versus no interventionWe found marginal improvements in ANC coverage of at least four visits (average odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.22; participants = 45,022; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 52%; high quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis with a more conservative intra-cluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) gave similar marginal results. Excluding one study at high risk of bias shifted the marginal pooled estimate towards no effect. There was no effect on pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.08; participants = 114,930; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; studies = 15; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 58%; moderate quality evidence) or low birthweight (average OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 5%; high quality evidence). Single interventions led to marginal improvements in the number of women who delivered in health facilities (average OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; high quality evidence), and in the proportion of women who had at least one ANC visit (average OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.24; I² = 76%; moderate quality evidence). Results for ANC coverage (at least four and at least one visit) and for perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Single interventions did not improve the proportion of women receiving tetanus protection (average OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; studies = 8; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 57%). No study reported onintermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 2: Two or more interventions versus no interventionWe found no improvements in ANC coverage of four or more visits (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.21; participants = 7840; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10; I² = 48%; low quality evidence) or pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.26; participants = 13,756; studies = three; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). However, combined interventions led to improvements in ANC coverage of at least one visit (average OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.17; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.06; I² = 83%; moderate quality evidence) and low birthweight (average OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; studies = two; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses for both ANC coverage four or more visits and perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Combined interventions improved the proportion of women who had tetanus protection (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.87; studies = 3; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 33%). No trial in this comparison reported on intermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 3: Two interventions compared head to head. No trials found. Comparison 4: One intervention versus a combination of interventionsThere was no difference in ANC coverage (four or more visits and at least one visit), pregnancy-related deaths, deliveries in a health facility or perinatal mortality. No trials in this comparison reported on low birthweight orintermittent prophylactic treatment of malaria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice - Single interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit and four or more visits) and deliveries in health facilities. Combined interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit), reduce perinatal mortality and reduce the occurrence of low birthweight. The effects of the interventions are unrelated to whether they are community or health system interventions. Implications for research - More details should be provided in reporting numbers of events, group totals and the ICCs used to adjust for cluster effects. Outcomes should be reported uniformly so that they are comparable to commonly-used population indicators. We recommend further cluster-RCTs of pregnant women and women in their reproductive years, using combinations of interventions and looking at outcomes that are important to pregnant women, such as maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, alongside the explanatory outcomes along the pathway of care: ANC coverage, the services provided during ANC and deliveries in health facilities.
OBJECTIVES: Given the large scale adoption and deployment of mobile phones by health services and frontline health workers (FHW), we aimed to review and synthesize the evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of mobile-based services on healthcare delivery.
METHODS: Five databases - Medline, Embase, Global Health, Google Scholar and Scopus - were systematically searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2013. Data were extracted and synthesized across three themes: feasibility of use of mobile tools by FHWs, training required for adoption of mobile tools, and effectiveness of such interventions.
RESULTS: 42 studies were included in this review. With adequate training, FHWs were able to use mobile phones to enhance various aspects of their work activities. Training of FHWs to use mobile phones for healthcare delivery ranged from a few hours to about one week. Five key thematic areas for the use of mobile phones by FHWs were identified: Data collection and reporting, training and decision support, emergency referrals, work planning through alerts and reminders, and improved supervision of and communication between healthcare workers. Data collection by mobile seems to improve promptness of data collection, reduce error rates, and improve data completeness. Two methodologically robust studies suggest that regular access to health information via SMS or mobile-based decision-support systems may improve the adherence of the FHWs to treatment algorithms. The evidence on the effectiveness of the other approaches was largely descriptive and inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of mHealth strategies by FHWs might offer some promising approaches to improving health care delivery; however, the evidence on the effectiveness of such strategies on healthcare outcomes is insufficient. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: In low-resource settings, community health workers are frontline providers who shoulder the health service delivery burden. Increasingly, mobile technologies are developed, tested, and deployed with community health workers to facilitate tasks and improve outcomes. We reviewed the evidence for the use of mobile technology by community health workers to identify opportunities and challenges for strengthening health systems in resource-constrained settings.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from health, medical, social science, and engineering databases, using PRISMA guidelines. We identified a total of 25 unique full-text research articles on community health workers and their use of mobile technology for the delivery of health services.
RESULTS: Community health workers have used mobile tools to advance a broad range of health aims throughout the globe, particularly maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, and sexual and reproductive health. Most commonly, community health workers use mobile technology to collect field-based health data, receive alerts and reminders, facilitate health education sessions, and conduct person-to-person communication. Programmatic efforts to strengthen health service delivery focus on improving adherence to standards and guidelines, community education and training, and programmatic leadership and management practices. Those studies that evaluated program outcomes provided some evidence that mobile tools help community health workers to improve the quality of care provided, efficiency of services, and capacity for program monitoring.
DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests mobile technology presents promising opportunities to improve the range and quality of services provided by community health workers. Small-scale efforts, pilot projects, and preliminary descriptive studies are increasing, and there is a trend toward using feasible and acceptable interventions that lead to positive program outcomes through operational improvements and rigorous study designs. Programmatic and scientific gaps will need to be addressed by global leaders as they advance the use and assessment of mobile technology tools for community health workers.
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.
Systematic Review Question»Other systematic review or not clear
