Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Date Submitted: Oct 5, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Oct 9, 2018 - Dec 4, 2018
Date Accepted: Aug 31, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Considerations for Improved Mobile Health Evaluation: Retrospective Qualitative Investigation

Dick S, O'Connor Y, Thompson MJ, O'Donoghue J, Hardy V, Wu TSJ, O'Sullivan T, Chirambo GB, Heavin C

Considerations for Improved Mobile Health Evaluation: Retrospective Qualitative Investigation

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(1):e12424

DOI: 10.2196/12424

PMID: 32012085

PMCID: 7003121

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Considerations for Improved Mobile Health Evaluation: Retrospective Qualitative Investigation

  • Samantha Dick; 
  • Yvonne O'Connor; 
  • Matthew J Thompson; 
  • John O'Donoghue; 
  • Victoria Hardy; 
  • Tsung-Shu Joseph Wu; 
  • Timothy O'Sullivan; 
  • Griphin Baxter Chirambo; 
  • Ciara Heavin

Background:

Mobile phone use and, consequently, mobile health (mHealth) interventions have seen an exponential increase in the last decade. There is an excess of 318,000 health-related apps available free of cost for consumers to download. However, many of these interventions are not evaluated and are lacking appropriate regulations. Randomized controlled trials are often considered the gold standard study design in determining the effectiveness of interventions, but recent literature has identified limitations in the methodology when used to evaluate mHealth.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to investigate the system developers’ experiences of evaluating mHealth interventions in the context of a developing country.

Methods:

We employed a qualitative exploratory approach, conducting semistructured interviews with multidisciplinary members of an mHealth project consortium. A conventional content analysis approach was used to allow codes and themes to be identified directly from the data.

Results:

The findings from this study identified the system developers’ perceptions of mHealth evaluation, providing an insight into the requirements of an effective mHealth evaluation. This study identified social and technical factors which should be taken into account when evaluating an mHealth intervention.

Conclusions:

Contextual issues represented one of the most recurrent challenges of mHealth evaluation in the context of a developing country, highlighting the importance of a mixed method evaluation. There is a myriad of social, technical, and regulatory variables, which may impact the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention. Failure to account for these variables in an evaluation may limit the ability of the intervention to achieve long-term implementation and scale.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Dick S, O'Connor Y, Thompson MJ, O'Donoghue J, Hardy V, Wu TSJ, O'Sullivan T, Chirambo GB, Heavin C

Considerations for Improved Mobile Health Evaluation: Retrospective Qualitative Investigation

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(1):e12424

DOI: 10.2196/12424

PMID: 32012085

PMCID: 7003121

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.